


ihe 


é 

LJ 

i d = 4) 
“ti 7, 





ee $ V a ae 
i 6 4 - 
a 


ACS E PEL 


IN THE 


SOURCES OF THE MESSENIACA 
OF PAUSANIAS. 


A DISSERTATION 


PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. 


BY 


HERMAN LOUIS EBELING, Pu. D., 
Professor of Greek in Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. 


BALTIMORE: 
JOHN MURPHY & CO. 
1892. 





A Sak U DY 


IN THE 


SOURCES OF THE MESSENIACA 
OF PAUSANIAS. 


A DISSERTATION 


PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, 


BY 


HERMAN LOUIS EBELING, Pu. D., 
Professor of Greek in Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. 


BALTIMORE: 
JOHN MURPHY & CO. 
1892. 













B 












hes ute Sav fe 0,9 Any 

Af) ie : tye ss < by. me Se ‘ es i ; sk i" ' Me ‘ “ ms “ ie "ae 
ty: me \. vias Mth hy i ot a ae ye e 
re 4 reer ; Ler nied MEY By ls, iy a ere ari) ui 
a nn nf f 7 ns / ” j i 

i. i / a7 7 4 j : 7 

iB, 4 we aT ' J 

re. POI CIE Ray EW Rate ss 

i ht “i q J ' 1 ; 1 


i ' | Pa (SE Ue eM hike i Pe AL GCA nee 









i ‘ ; W i Sart Pa f 
A 4 i 4 j 1a ) i , fps Pa i ty ay : ih 
| : . | ' iM: q ! Me “3s i , 
| . | : LW Fu, 
- o 
es iis ‘ | 
iy erat i sil 
‘i i a P ‘ ; 
M “4 ‘ : i ot ‘ eu : iy rele } "i U 
on) hale DAVEE At he Hy h LLOrY a ARE 
“ded ‘ LS r A i. a 7 wit 7 H iv { i ny 
a0 : ove Gas Vi CV MYA vae \D veii ine Wiega 
| vi ies : Aga or 
* ¢ "1 . , j oh ri 
Rp) so ae f PRee Rss ous aio a ry : it iy a 
§ i 4 - ie, ut ¥ } ye 44 eer 











uA ; 





Ve ‘ A i 5 
by te S eve ae 
ve RY ne 








anew 


TO 


MY DEAR PARENTS. 


f (ve 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/studyinsourcesof00ebelrich 


CONGENTS. 


PAGE 
PREFACE, - - - = : = = é e - : : aed; 
A SKETCH OF MEssSENIAN History, - - - . - - - - 7 
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE, - - - - - - - - - - 10 
ERRATA. 
A few obvious misprints are passed without notice. 
Pages 51, 53, 56, 58, 78 §—for Conat read Couat. 
Page 75, 1. 1, 4, and 13 — “ Comon “Conon. 
Lf 13, l. 3 from bottom— “proof of. 
ae 23, 1, 16 “ce “ Eas 66 c. VI, a “cc p: 525 
Ces soe Ui 30 So Op. 25 * pr 24: 
Hs a es UN teeta va | ps 19: 
eon lth. “_ — “that part of the first war read that part the first war. 
SOS TE Gr “ — “ce. VII, 6, end read p. 64. 
feeb 2. top: —* “Althis “" Atthis. 
pamOds lo eo ee ie) on 183 p16: 
SS OTe Ke, tlh BS — “ vedvecbat “<  yeverOa 
(2) oes Le “ — divide éxdo@ev—ros 
se Goalies Oy ec — “  peremeu—rovte 
“ 67,1. 6 “ bottom— “ os 
sepa zales ae. °° “  — “  Sxap-tiatay 
VII. MyYrRon’s HISTORY FROBABUY oN uOwEw eax 3 ee 
RESTORATION, - - - - - - - - - 54-58 
a. Various Reasons Assigned to Proye Myron’s Authorship,  - - 54 
b. The Part Played by Destiny Points to Myron, - - : - 47 
@ Kbhianusand Myron; - - = - == = = 58 
VII, a. Tae Turrp MEssenitan WAR, - - - - : - - 65 
b. Chapter XXV,_ - - - E = = = = : - 69 
c. Chapter XXVI, - - - - - - - - - - 72 


CONCLUSION, SSR a Rene aR Ae ee ae Meh geeky dl ES NG rs UME ES ert) 





VO NRICN ES: 


PAGE. 
PREFACE, - - - - = : : : 3 2 2 : Exons: 
A SKETCH OF MESSENIAN History, - — - ee ee =) ayy 
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE, - - = = = = : 2 = l(t) 
HOUND RODUCTION Ss! © —tm) =0 (fe jie ee, ey yal) Sap) oh a a 
II. Pausanras’ INTRODUCTION TAKEN FROM Myron, - - - 14-22 
a, Comparison between Introduction and Account of First War, - 14 
b. Teleclus, -  - ee Se Sh i> ME a 
c. Diodorus, - - : : : ae eae, ots Bit: 
d. Polychares, - z = = 3 = 2 é = = - 20 
Il. PausanrAs’ SKETCH OF THE CLOSE OF THE First WAR, - - - 22 
IV, a. THE Sources ror CHaprers XIV-XVII oTHER THAN Myron, - 26 
6. Ephorus and Tyrtaeus, - - - - = : - = Wij 
ce. Sosibius, = = = 2 = - = é 2 = 90 
d. Reasons why Ephorus’ History not used more Extensively, - - 30 
e. Rhianus, = = = = = = = si a = Si 
VY. Myron THE CHIEF Source For CHAPTERS XTV-XVII, - - 32-45 
a. Myron used Tradition pertaining to the Second War, - - - 32 
6. Certain parts dealing with Aristomenes from Myron, - - - 35 
c. The Allies, - - - a ae 5 ie ae wee) 
d. Tyrtaeus, — - ‘ - - - = 2 : : = =< 143 
REVIEW, - - - - - = = 2 = = 2 Ur Ag 
VI. CONSIDERATION OF PossIBLE SOURCES FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE 
RESTORATION, - - - - - - - - - 46-51 
a. It was not constructed by Pausanias from Fragments, - . - 46 
b. The Story of the Restoration joined to an Account of the Previous 
History, - - . - - ae - - - - 48 
ce. Rhianus, - - - . - - - - - - - 51 
VII. Myron’s History Propasty INcLUDED AN ACCOUNT OF THE 
RESTORATION, - - - - - - - - - 54-58 
a. Various Reasons Assigned to Prove Myron’s Authorship,  - - 54 
b. The Part Played by Destiny Points to Myron, - . - =O 
ce. Rhianus and Myron, - - - - - - - - - 58 
VIII, a. Tur Turrp MrsseniAn WAR, - - - - - - - 65 
b. Chapter XXV,_ - - - - - - - - - - 69 
ce. Chapter XXVI, - - - - - - - - - - 72 


CoNCLUSION, Ete Eh eit Yh WLC) « Sie eal ace aa eae 


oo eee = 





=) 


\ YNIVER¢ 
CS 


PREP ACE. 


It has long been recognized that the style of Pausanias’ Messe- 
niaca is an improvement on that of the other books of his Descriptio 
Graeciae, and very justly this improvement has been referred to 
the sources he had used. 

Kohlmann, Quaestiones Messeniacae, 1866, has shown that these 
sources were to a large extent Myron of Priene, a rhetorician, and 
the epic poet Rhianus of Bene. Hoping to prove Pausanias’ 
dependence upon Rhianus more in detail, I undertook to examine 
the Messeniaca with a view to poetic style. I compared with it 
the extant epigrams of Rhianus, but without success. A search for 
poetical words revealed one here and there, but these may be found 
in the other books as well. Moreover, that part of the fourth book 
which has been attributed to Myron is not without poetical color, 
owing no doubt somewhat to the sources which Myron himself had 
used. Myron also came in fora share of my attention. Kohlmann 
among other things cited a number of passages containing moral re- 
flections, which he referred to the rhetorician as their source. But 
on further reading in Pausanias, moral reflections appeared very 
frequently in the other books, so that they offered no test of 
authorship. 

Hoping still to throw some light on the style of the fourth book, 
which would enable me to mark off the different parts of it, I 
examined the style of Pausanias more generally. This only proved 
to me that Pausanias has a style of his own, such as it is, which 
seems to be characterized nowhere so well as in Gurlitt, Uber Pau- 
sanias, 1890, p. 15 sqq. This view is supported by the fact that 
the multitude and variety of the sources which Pausanias used, 
made it necessary for him to resist at least a literal transfer. 


5 


6 Preface. 


C. Wernicke, De Pausaniae Periegetae Studiis Herodoteis (Ber- 
olini, 1884), has shown in parallel columns how Pausanias adopted 
matter from Herodotus. One may say of these passages that with- 
out exception they have been changed in diction and in structure, 
and Pausanias’ desire to assimilate the material to his style can be 
seen most markedly in those passages where the borrowing is close. 
The same may be said on comparing Pausanias VIII, 49-51, with 
Plutarch’s Philopoemen (see Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen ib. 
die Quellen des Livius, p. 287 sqq., Barta, 1863). Besides Pausa- 
nias shows considerable skill in extracting, condensing and com- 
bining his material, to which he seems ever ready to make some 
slight additions from memory. A certain amount of args sete 
may also be seen in the alterations which he makes. 

This independence, then, and the mosaic-like character of his 
work explains the difficulty of separating one part from the other 
by detecting differences of style. I therefore determined to make 
an attempt at defining the limits of the sources of the Messeniaca 
from internal evidence before continuing my study of the style. 

The result has been the following study of the sources of the 
Messeniaca, in which it has been attempted to prove that Pausanias 
made a larger use of Myron’s work than is generally supposed. 


A SKETCH OF MESSENIAN HISTORY. 


As it might assist the reader in understanding the arguments of 
the following discussion, I give below a short sketch of Messenian 
history according to Pausanias, to which I append a chronological 
table, giving some dates of important events in this history, as well 
as of those ancient writers whose testimony we have to consider. 

Long before the siege of Troy Polycaon came to the unoccupied 
land that lay west of the Taygetus range of mountains and took 
possession of it. From his wife’s name, Messene, the land was 
called Messenia. The government under Polycaon and his succes- 
sors was on the whole peaceful ; cities were founded and religious 
institutions established. At the return of the Heraclidae the Dorian 
Cresphontes drew lots for this fertile country with the sons of 
Aristodemus, and through an understanding with Temenus, king 
of Argos, to whom the lot drawing had been entrusted, Cresphontes 
had Messenia assigned to himself. This brought Messenia under 
Dorian rule, and although in an uprising Cresphontes was killed, 
his son Aepytus was placed on the throne by the help of the Arca- 
dian king Cypselus and the above mentioned sons of Aristodemus, 
and so the family of Cresphontes ruled Messenia for many years 
until the race became extinct with the death of Euphaes, who was 
killed in the first Messenian war. It was during the reign of 
Phintas that the first occasion arose which caused a feeling of 
enmity between the Lacedaemonians and Messenians. They had 
been in the habit of worshipping together in the temple of Artemis 
Limnas, which was situated on the border of Messenia and Lace- 
daemonia. At one of such religious festivals a disturbance arose 
between the Messenians and Spartans, during which the Spartan 
king Teleclus was killed. Later on a difficulty arose between a 

7 


8 A Sketch of Messenian History. 


Messenian named Polychares and a Spartan named Euaephnus. 
All attempts to smooth the matter over proved unavailing, and the 
war broke out by the Spartans’ seizing the Messenian town Ampheia 
743 B. C. 

The war lasted twenty years, and was conducted bravely by the 
Messenians against great odds ; at first under the leadership of their 
king Euphaes, and then under that of Aristodemus, who was elected 
in spite of the protests of the priests. For Aristodemus, in his 
eagerness to serve his country, had attempted in obedience to the 
oracle, to sacrifice his daughter, but owing to the opposition he 
met with from the lover of the maiden, had in a fit of passion slain 
her with his own hand. Shortly before this tragedy the Messe- 
nians had retreated to the mountain fortress Ithome, where they 
held out against the attacks of the Spartans for many years, but 
finally a succession of unfavorable oracles and omens threw them 
and their leader into despair. Aristodemus committed suicide on 
the grave of his daughter, and five months later, at the end of the 
twentieth year, Ithome was surrendered. Some of the Messenians 
went into exile, but the majority remained and were sorely oppressed 
by Spartan rule. Thirty-nine years after the surrender of Ithome 
the Messenians tried to throw off the Spartan yoke. They were 
now led by Aristomenes, who performed many wonderful deeds of 
bravery, and struck terror into the hearts of the Spartans. The 
oracle advised them to ask the Athenians for a counsellor, who sent 
them the lame school-master Tyrtaeus. He, however, succeeded in 
reviving the courage of the Lacedaemonians with his war-songs. 
At the battle of the Great Trench the Messenians suffered an over- 
whelming defeat owing to the treachery of the Arcadian king 
Aristocrates, who unexpectedly withdrew his troops from the field 
of battle. The Messenians now retreated to the mountain Kira, 
where they held out against a siege for eleven years, during which 
time Aristomenes made repeated inroads upon Spartan territory 
with a band of trusty followers. Finally, 668 B. C., the Messe- 
nians were forced to capitulate, and sought refuge with their Arca- 
dian neighbors. The treachery of the Arcadian king Aristocrates 
was discovered, and he was put to death. Most of the Messenians 
set sail for Sicily, where they had been called by Anaxilas, king of 
Rhegium. They got possession of the town Zancle and changed its 


A Sketch of Messenian History. 9 


name to Messene. Aristomenes ended his days on the island of 
Rhodes, where he had accompanied one of his daughters, who had 
married the king of Ialysus, a town on this island. 

The third Messenian war (464 B.C.) was occasioned by an 
earthquake, which proved so disastrous to the Spartans that those 
of the Helots who were descended from the Messenians thought 
an opportunity had arrived to gain their liberty. They entrenched 
themselves on Mt. Ithome, and succeeded in resisting all attacks 
that were made upon them for a number of years. Finally, how- 
ever, they were forced to capitulate, whereupon the Athenians turned 
over to them the city Naupactus to inhabit. While here they cap- 
tured a town, Oeniadae, in Acarnania, which was hostile to the 
Athenians, but held it only for one year. 

After the battle of Aegospotami, 405 B. C., they were driven out 
of Naupactus by the Spartans. Some of them went to their coun- 
trymen in Sicily and to Rhegium, but most of them set sail for 
Libya under the leadership of Comon, and settled in Eusperitae. 

Thirty-five years later they were recalled by Epaminondas, who 
organized a new Messenian state 370 B. C. Comon, who had been 
apprised beforehand by a dream of their return to Greece, led 
them back. 

Great preparations were now made for building on Mt. Ithome 
a town which was to be called Messene. When everything was in 
readiness all present offered sacrifices to their respective gods, and 
thereupon, to the accompaniment of flutes, they began the construc- 
tion of the walls of the new city. 

Pausanias continues with an account of the later history of the 
Messenians down to the year 183 B. C., but as this part has little 
to do with our subject, it has been omitted. 

It may perhaps not be superfluous to warn the reader against 
confusing Aristodemus with Aristomenes. 

Aristodemus was the king of the Messenians in the first war. 

Aristomenes was the national hero of the Messenians, who per- 
formed heroic deeds in the second war. 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF MESSENIAN HISTORY. 


B. C. 
1104. Cresphontes. 
826. Teleclus. 
743, First Messenian War. 
685. Second Messenian War. 
464. Third Messenian War. 
455. Messenians settle in Naupactus. 
405. Messenians driven from Naupactus. 
370. Messenia restored by Epaminondas. 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE SOURCES. 


By C. 
685. Tyrtaeus. 
445, Herodotus. 
419. Thucydides. 
396 (446-355). Xenophon. 
369. Tsocrates. 
338. Ephorus. 
251 (about). Sosibius. 
222. Rhianus. 
200. (?) Myron of Priene. 
146. Polybius. 
1st Cent. Diodorus Siculus. 
— Strabo. 
oa Trogus Pompeius (Epitome of his History by 
Justinus, 400 A. D. (?) 
sD 
150. Pausanias. 
— Polyaenus. 
200. Clemens Alexandrinus. 
300. Eusebius Caesariensis. 
400. (?) Justinus. 


Note.—References are made to pages of thesis or to chapters. 


10 


A STUDY IN THE SOURCES OF THE MESSENIACA 
OF PAUSANIAS. 


I. INTRODUCTION. 


Sober history knows but little in reference to the Messenian wars. 
Busolt, Griech. Gesch., I, 134, considers the verses of Tyrtaeus to 
be nearly our only reliable source of information concerning them. 
They were probably the only source which the ancients themselves 
possessed, whose collection of Tyrtaean verses containing historical 
information was, as O. Miiller, Dorier, 1844, p. 141, remarked, 
hardly larger than that which we have at the present day. 

But although there was little reliable information of these early 
wars handed down, yet there was an abundance of tradition cher- 
ished by the Messenians, which clustered chiefly about the deeds of 
Aristomenes, who was looked upon as the national hero. Isocrates, 
Archidamus, draws on Mythology to establish the claim of the 
Spartans to Messenia, and speaks also of oracles that had gone out 
from Delphi in answer to the inquiries sent there both by the Mes- 
senians and Lacedaemonians. When the Messenians were restored 
to their country by Epaminondas, 370 B. C., it was but natural 
that the interest in these early events should be largely increased, 
and in consequence of this several writers undertook to work up 
the existing material into a literary form, Of the Messeniaca by 
ZEschylus of Alexandria mentioned by Athenaeus, 13, 599, e, 
nothing further is known. But from Pausanias we know that 
Rhianus of Bene seized upon this material to write an epic poem 
in imitation of Homer's Jliad, in which Aristomenes was the cen- 
tral figure; also that Myron, using to a large extent the same 
material, wrote a history of the Messenians in prose, in which other 
heroes played prominent roles along with Aristomenes. 

alas 


12 A Study in the Sources of 


The following discussion deals chiefly with Myron’s history, 
therefore a characterization of his work, as far as known, is neces- 
sary. Unfortunately there are no fragments of his work extant, 
if we except two short passages in Athenaeus, and we have to rely 
chiefly on the account of the first Messenian war in Pausanias for 
our information. : 

There is no doubt that Myron served Pausanias as a source for 
writing the history of the first Messenian war. Pausanias’ own 
words in ec. 6, besides Kohlmann’s investigation alluded to above, 
prove this. And, as it is also highly probable that Myron was the 
only source for this part of the Messeniaca, I shall proceed in my 
investigation on the assumption that all of the first Messenian war 
reflects Myron’s manner of treatment, although it seems that, as 
usual, Pausanias manipulated his material and put it in his own 
language. 

We see in the Myron of Pausanias a rhetorician. Boeckh, Opuse., 
IV, 211, 4, and C. Miller, Fragm. Hist. Gr., IV, 461, have iden- 
tified him with the rhetorician of that name mentioned by Rutilius 
Lupus, De figg. sentent., I, 20; II, 1; and Kohlmann has sufficiently 
pointed out the rhetorical character of the account of the first Mes- 
senian war in Pausanias to support this view. An examination of 
the account of the first war also shows that Myron was more bent 
on furbishing up tradition than on writing history, and so Kohl- 
mann justly calls him seriptor fabularum magis, quam historiarum. 
Busolt (Neue Jahrb. f. Phil., 1883, p. 814), has thrown considerable 
light on the manner in which Myron composed his history. He 
says: “Der Rahmen fiir die Geschichte des ersten messenischen 
Krieges ist also aus Thukydides und Xenophon zusammengeflickt. 
Zur Fiillung desselben wurden allerlei Details, Fabeln und Wun- 
dergeschichten verwendet, die der Gewihrsmann des Pausanias 
[Myron] nach Erzihlung der Messenier und dem Epos compo- 
nierte.” This explains the air of unreality in so many passages of 
Pausanias’ Messeniaca, and in this light we are able to appreciate 
the criticism that Pausanias himself, c. 6, passed on Myron: Mipova 
Sé eri Te dANOLs KaTapabety oti ov Tpoopwmmevony Ef Yrevdh TE Kal 
ov miBava bofer réyerv, Kal ody Heota év Troe TH Meconvia 
ouyypagy. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 13 


But we should not censure Myron for writing a fictitious account 
of the Messenian wars; for, as history has failed us here, we have 
thus had preserved for us an interesting though imaginary picture 
of these wars. It is true the partisan spirit displayed is very 
marked, yet we are very willing to have our sympathies aroused 
for the Messenians, who had to suffer so severe a punishment. 

That Myron felt a bitterness for the Spartans can be seen from 
Athenaeus, 14, 657,d: 67 dé. tots Eidwou bBpiotiKds trav 
expoavTo Nakedarpovior kal Mipwv o Lpinveds ictopet év Sevtépw 
Meconviaxav ypadov ottas ‘tots & Eitwor wav USpioteKov Epyov 
ETLTATTOVGL TPOS TATAV AyoV aTimiaV K.T.Xr. 

We have accordingly the following important characteristics of 
Myron’s style: animosity displayed towards the Spartans ; elements 
of a rhetorical style shown, for instance, in the frequent speeches ; 
fictitious descriptions of battles ; frequent anachronisms ; and lastly 
imitations of passages in Thucydides, in Xenophon, and to some 
extent, I think, in Herodotus. 


I shall undertake to prove, in the first place, that Pausanias is 
indebted to Myron for the whole of his introduction, aside from 
short paragraphs added by Pausanias, and for the sketch of the 
close of the first war, in addition to the history of the first war 
down to the death of Aristodemus, which is generally conceded to 
Myron. 

On both of these positions the words of Pausanias in ec. 6, which 
seem to deal with the limits of Myron’s history, have an important 
bearing. Although it will be shown below that Pausanias could 
not have meant these words to be taken literally, yet they are stated 
so positively that the reader is led to suppose that Myron failed to 
write an introduction to his history, and that he brought the same 
to a close with the death of Aristodemus, five months before the end 
of the war. In respect to the latter point scholars have interpreted 
this passage in the above literal manner, although in regard to the 
former they grant that Myron may have written an introduction. 
Yet the proof this which Immerwahr, Lakonika, 140, finds in the 
assumption that Myron was also used by Diodorus as.a source, does 
not seem to rest on a sure foundation (see IT, c.) ; neither is it likely 


14 A Study in the Sources of 


that his view that the introduction in Pausanias was compiled from 
different sources, is correct. 


II. Pavsanras’ INTRODUCTION TAKEN FROM Myron. 


a). Comparison between Introduction and Account of First War. 


An examination of Pausanias’ introduction to the Messenian wars 
in the light of Myron’s characteristics of style, as given above, 
and a comparison of this introduction with the account of the first 
war down to the death of Aristodemus (i. ¢., ec. 5, 9 to ¢. 13. 5), will 
make it probable that Pausanias was indebted to Myron for the 
whole of his introduction. 

It may be remarked at the outset that it seems incredible that 
Myron’s history, a prose work which seemed to take in all the cir- 
cumstances that pertained to the first war, should have omitted to 
write an introduction, but should have commenced with the taking 
of Ampheia (c. 6). That the contrary is true may be seen in the 
first place by comparing Pausanias’ introduction with the account 
which Ephorus gave of the causes that led to the Messenian wars. 
Strabo, 279: "Edopos 8 ottw Néyes Tepl THs KTicEws érroNémouy 
Aaxkedatpovio. Meconviors atroxteivact Tov Bacidéa THdEKXOP Eis 
Meconvny adixopevov ert Ovaiav, 6uocavTes pn TpoTEpov érravn Eewy 
oixade Tplv 7) Meconvny avenretv 7) mavtas arobavety. The sequel 
to this oath is the story about the Partheniae (Strabo, 1. c.), which 
is not in Pausanias. According to Ephorus, we notice, the killing 
of Teleclus was the immediate cause of the war, and the Spartans 
swear in consequence to destroy Messene (Meoonuny aveneiv). 

We find the same in Diod., XV, 66: wera 5€ tradta TnrXExdov 
Tod Baciréws TOV Aaxedaipoviwv arobavortos év ay@ut KaTETTONE- 
penOncav bro AMaxedatpoviov oi Mecanviot + TodTOv é TOV TONEMLOV 
elkocaeThH hace yevécOat, katopocapévov Tov AaKedatpovior p42) 
avakdprwyew eis THY Yrdaprnv, éav’ un Meconvnv éX@or; and in 
Justinus, III, 4: His igitur moribus ita brevi civitas convaluit, ut, 
cum Messeniis, propter stupratas virgines suas in solemni Messeni- 
orum sacrificio (the occasion on which Teleclus was killed, ef. Paus., 
c. 2), bellum intalissent, gravissima se execratione obstrinxerint, non 
prius quam Messenam expugnassent, reversuros. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 15 


All of the above is supposed to go back to Ephorus, except that 
Busolt does not believe that Ephorus knew anything about the 
violation of the maidens, of which Justinus speaks. See Enmann, 
Untersuch. Pomp. Trog., p. 125, and Busolt, Griech. Gesch., I, p. 
153, 1. We find all of the above in Pausanias, but with some 
changes and many additions, such as we might expect to find in 
such an historical romance as we know Myron’s Messeniaca to 
have been. 

The oath according to Ephorus is strictly adhered to; not so in 
Pausanias (ce. 7, 7; 5, 8), for although Myron, his source, had 
recorded the oath, yet he evidently found it inconvenient to handle 
the narrative of the Messenian war, with the Spartans constantly 
on the scene. 

Again we find that whereas, according to Ephorus the Spartans 
wish to punish the Messenians for killing Teleclus, in Pausanias 
this affair is allowed to pass unnoticed (c. 4, 3), and not until a 
generation later does the affair with Polychares take place, which 
becomes the immediate cause of the war. This permits a much 
longer discussion of the causes, and so helps to put the Spartans in 
a much worse light, which is in perfect accord with Myron’s atti- 
tude towards them. 

The Spartans’ aim is, according to Strabo, 279: Meconrnyr ave- 
Aelvy ; according to Diod., XV, 76: yu) avaxdp ew ets THY 
Xraptynv, éav pn Meconvynv EXwor; according to Just., III, 4: 
non prius quam Messenam expugnassent, reversuros. In Pausanias, 
ce. 5, 8, on the other hand, we read this rhetorical statement : 
Tpoopvvovaw GpKov pte TOU ToAewou pAKos, iy pn Ov OALYyoU 
KplOn, pynte TAS TUpHopas, el peydrat TorXEWOvGL yévOWTO, a7rO- 
Tpéyrew odds Tplv i) KTHTaLWTO Yapav THY Meconviav Sopiadotovr ° 
TavTa TpoomocavTes CEodoy vUKTwp éToLodYTO ert "Auderav. Now 
the charge, that the Spartans wanted the Messenian land, is a con- 
trolling idea in the discussion of the causes of the war, occurring 
also in c. 4, 3, and ec. 5, 3, the latter passage being a fierce outburst 
against the Spartan greed of gain. And as it is also found in the 
part which Pausanias, c. 6, expressly says was written by Myron, 
namely in ce. 7,9; 7,10; 8, 2, being there expressed in the speeches 
respectively of Theopompus, Euphaes and in the reproaches uttered 


16 A Study in the Sources of 


by the Messenians on the battlefield, the close connection between 
the introduction and the account of the first war is manifest. 

Again a correspondence can be seen between these two parts, in 
the charge brought against the Spartans that they were the aggres- 
sors. As far back in the introduction as c. 4, 3, we read that the 
Spartans had not demanded satisfaction for the killing of Teleclus 
for the following reason: ovvevdotas ws dpEaev adcxias, and again 
(c. 4,4), cal npEav of Aaxedatpoviot troXépov. This same accusa- 
tion is made in Myron’s part, where we read (c. 6, 6) that Euphaes 
encouraged the Messenians after the capture of the Ampheia with 
the words Kat 70 evuevéotepov EcecOar Tapa TaV Dedy aptvovae 
TH OlKELA Kal OK adLKias apKoVOL. 

We read in the account of the war, ec. 8, 2, that the Messenians 
consider the aggression of the Spartans all the greater as they were 
both of the same race, as follows: of d€ éxetvous TH TE eyKELPH WATE 
avogtous, émet mAEoveELas Evexa Kat él dvdpas cuyyevels érriact, 
x.7T.». <A similar charge is brought in the introduction, ¢. 5, 3: 
Kpoicw te adtots dpa atoctétNXavTe yevécOar hidovs BapBdpo 
TpwTous, ad ov ye Tovs TE AANOUS Tos ev TH Acia KaTESOVAO- 
cato” EXdnvas kat door Awptels ev TH Kapixh xatotxodaw nreipo. 

That Myron was guilty of anachronisms has been mentioned 
above. So we find in the account of the war c. 12,2: tots Bacu- 
Nedot Kal Tois ébopots, and likewise in the introduction, c. 4, 8: 
poitav és tHv Aaxedaipova Tois paciredow Hv Kal Tots epopots Oo” 
dyXov ; cf. also introduction, c. 5,4. These are the only passages 
where Ephors are mentioned in the account of the first two Mes- 
senian wars. Busolt, I, 147, 2, says: Aus Diod., VIII, 7, und 
Paus., TV, 4, 5 (wahrscheinlich nach Myron von Priene), folgt 
natiirlich nicht, dass schon beim Ausbruche des ersten messenischen 
Krieges das Ephorat bestand. Id., I, 148. Noch zur Zeit des 
zweiten messenischen Krieges lag, wie aus einem Tyrtaios-Fragment 
erhellt, die Leitung des Staates wesentlich in den Hinden des 
Konigs und der Gerusia. (Cf. also id., I, 149, 4.) 

A correspondence between the introduction and the account of 
the first war may also be seen in the references made to the well 
known fraud of Cresphontes, which was not only told in its proper 
connection in the recital of the early history in ec. 3, 3-6, but was 
also brought forward as one of the causes of the war in ec. 5, 1, as 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 17 


follows: AaxeSarpovior pév 52 Lorvydpous te évexa ox éxdobé- 
vTos ohict, Kai, dia Tov TnrEKAOV Hovov, Kal wpoTEpon ETL UTOTTWS 
éxovtes Sua TO Kpeopovtov kaxovpynpua és Tov KApov, TONE aL 
Aéyouow. Reference is clearly made to this in the account of the 
war in the oracle quoted, c. 12,1: "AXN’ ararn pév ever yatav 
Meconvida Xaos, K.T. 2. 

Let us now examine in succession the stories told in the intro- 
duction about Teleclus and Polychares, in each of which we shall 
find clear indications of Myron’s style. A partisan spirit is quite 
manifest. In the case of Teleclus, where there are two versions, 
the Messenian one comes last, and is the longer; likewise in the 
summing up of the causes after the Polychares story (c. 5), the 
Spartan view is simply stated in not quite four lines, whereupon 
follows a fierce attack, made from the Messenian standpoint, occu- 
pying fully a page. ‘That Pausanias is following his source here is 
evident (cf. especially c. 5, 5). Examine also III, 3,1; IV, 4,1; 
4, 3; 5, 3, where he makes a show of impartiality. 


b). Teleclus. 


Of the two versions that are given of the Teleclus affair, the 
Spartan one, as Pausanias tells it (c. 4, 2), may be had by combining 
Strabo, 279, with 362 and 257, which would include the same 
description of the temple of Artemis Limnas as Pausanias gives in 
ce. 4,2, and III, 2, 5. At the same time Pausanias’ work as a 
compiler can be seen in the genealogy of Teleclus, which he doubt- 
less took from Sosibius (cf. Immerwahr, op. cit., 7 sqq.) However 
that may be, Pausanias is evidently following Myron in the Mes- 
senian version. In fact it does not seem to be altogether unlikely 
that Myron himself mentioned the Spartan version, and then con- 
tinued with what he represented as the true story. 

The Messenian versfon bears a striking resemblance to the story 
told in Hdt., v. 20, so that when we consider that Myron wrote a 
fictitious account, getting his suggestions from scraps of history, it 
seems possible that he followed Herodotus in composing this story. 
A comparison of the two stories will show the likelihood of this 
supposition : 


18 A Study in the Sources of 


Paus., c. 4,3: Meoonvior dé 
tots €XGodat chav és TO lepov 
mpwtevovaw ev Meconvn Kata 
akiopa, TovTos daciv émiBou 
Nevoat THAEKAO?, aiTLov Ee Eivat 
TAS Yopas THS Meconvias tiv 
apeTny, émtBouNevovTa Oe em tNé- 
fa. Ywaptiatav, oTdco Tow 
yévera ovK €eixyov, TovTous Sé 
ecOjre Kal Kooum TO oLTO 
oKevacavTa ws TapVEvors ava- 
mavopévois Tots Meaonviots 
érevoayayeiv, Sovta éyxerpioua 
Kal Tovs Meconviovs auvvope- 


ler A / \ 
Hdt., V., 17: MeyaBa€os dé 
/ > fz > j 

‘++ qéumres ayyéXous es Make- 

iZ YA ¢ \ / a 

dovinv avdpas émta Llépaas, ot 

per avrov éxeivov Hoav SoKiwo- 

Tato. év TH OTpaToTréb@. é7ré- 

ptrovTo O€ *** aiTHoovTes YyAV 

G 

te kal tdwp; V, 20: avdros dé 0 

"AdéEavdpos toous That yuvarkl 

> \ ” fi lel 

apiOmov dvdpas NELoyEvEloUs TH 

TOV yuvatkay écOATL cKEvadoas 

Kal éyxetpioua Sovs Taphye éow 

e \ > / / e 

- + of 6€, éret TE THhEwY OF 

Tlépoa: Wavew érerpéovTo, diep- 
yalovtTo avTous. 


y / 
vous TOUS TE ayevelous veavic- 
\ rn / 
KousS Kal avTov atroxtetvar Tn- 
- NEKXOV. 


c). Diodorus. 


The Polychares episode involves the question whether Diodorus 
also used Myron as a source ; for the fragments of Book VIII con- 
tain the Polychares story, and have also other matter bearing more 
or less resemblance to the account of the first war in Pausanias. 
Enmann, op. cit., 123, who has been followed by Busolt, I, 135, 
and Immerwahr, Lakonika, 140, seems to have been the first to 
assert that Myron was a source for Diod. VIII. Although this 
view would throw welcome light upon the present investigation, 
yet a closer examination makes the truth of this ‘assertion rather 
doubtful. 

The passage in Diod., XV, 66, reading as follows, évioe dé Tov 
"Apiotopévny yeyovévas daclt Kata Tov eikocaeTh TodEpuov, has 
been thought to refer to Myron, for Pausanias, c. 6, tells us that 
Myron had made the mistake of associating Aristomenes with the 
first war, and so the fragment in Diod., VIII, 10, which tells of a 
dispute between Aristomenes and Kleonnis, one of the Messenian 
leaders in the first Messenian war, might seem to have been taken 
from Myron, with whose history it seems to agree in style. But I 
shall show below (c. V, a) that the tradition concerning the first 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 19 


two Messenian wars had been frequently confused ; besides, the fol- 
lowing passages prove that such a confusion was widespread in the 
ease of Aristomenes.'| Plutarch, Agis, 21, says: Meoonviwv 6é 
kal Ocovourov v7’ ’Apiotopévous Treceiv Neyovtwv ov hace Aaxe- 
Sarpovio, TAMYHvat S€ wovoyv. Two versions are implied in this 
passage, according to which Aristomenes was a contemporary of 
Theopompus, who took part in the first war. Again, in Clem. 
Alex., Protrept., III, 42, we read: ’Apicropévns yotv 6 Mecanvios 
T® lOwpntn Aci tpraxocious atécdhakev, Tora’tas Opod Kal ToL- 
avTas KaNXLeEpely dLopevos ExaTouBas év ois Kal Oedropros Hv 6 
Aaxedaipoviwy Bacireds, lepeiov evyevés. This same passage 
occurs in Euseb., Praeparat. Hvang., 1V, 16,12. It is plain then 
that others besides Myron could have presented to Diodorus the 
confusion as to the period of Aristomenes. The reference then to 
the view of those who said that Aristomenes had taken part in the 
twenty years war, cited above from Diod., XV, 66, need not have 
been aimed at Myron. Im fact, as the sketch of the Messenian 
wars given in Diod., XV, 66, was taken from Ephorus (Busolt, 
Griech. Gesch., I, 134), it is probable that the above-mentioned 
view was included, for no doubt Ephorus had himself to reckon 
with the two opinions as to the period of Aristomenes (see c. IV, b). 

As to the Kleonnis-Aristomenes fragment in Diod., VIII, it is 
more than doubtful whether this ought to be credited to Diodorus, 
for it would have been inconsistent on the part of Diodorus to 
represent in book VIII Aristomenes as taking part in the first war, 
and then to associate him with the second war in XV, 66. The 
fact of his referring to the other view in the latter passage argues 
against the plea of an oversight. Such a discrepancy in Diodorus’ 
history would be especially remarkable if Eporus’ history served 
Diodorus as a source both for XV, 66, and for book VIII (En- 
mann, Pomp. Trog., 123 ff.). Fried. Jacobs, Verm. Schrif., 8'°* Bd., 
Leipzig, 1844, thought it better to restore the Kleonnis-Aristomenes 
fragment to the anonymous writer, under which title H. Stephanus 
had edited it. Kohlmann, op. cit., 9, thought it was from Myron 
himself, which view is worthy of consideration. 


1Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 135, says: “Diese Geschichte [the story that Aristo- 
menes killed Theopompos, who lived in the first war] war freilich keine dem 
Myron eigene Erfindung, soudern gehérte zu der Spiteren messenischen Uber- 
lieferung,” etc. 


20 A Study in the Sources of 


Diod., VIII, 6, corresponds with Paus., c. 9,14, but only in so 
far as Diodorus gives in prose the oracle which is quoted by Paus- 
anias. Verbal agreement is therefore of no consequence, for these 
oracles were without doubt widely known. Eusebius, Praep. 
Evang., V, 27, 3, has the same oracle, although somewhat con- 
densed, expressed in hexameters. A like correspondence exists 
between Paus., ce. 12,1, and Diod., VIII, 13, as another oracle 
quoted by Pausanias is also quoted by Diodorus; but here, too, 
Eusebius, op. cit., V, 27, 1, has the same oracle, this time word for 
word. For the frequency of these oracles, compare Strabo, 257, 
where still another oracle concerning the downfall of Messenia is 
mentioned, and also Isocrates, Archidam., 31: trepArdvtw@v apdoté- 
pov eis AedXdovs. 

According to Diod., VIII, 6, the occasion for sending to the 
oracle was partly owing to the howling of the dogs. In Paus., ¢. 
13, 1, the howling of dogs is also mentioned, but in an entirely 
different connection (see c. V, a). Moreover, the cavilling in this ° 
passage of Diodorus at the efficiency of the seers does not harmonize 
with the respect shown Epebolus, nor with the sending of Tisis to 
Dolphi, who was also a seer, nor with the religious tone generally 
in Pausanias’ account. 

There is one small fragment, 7. e., Diod., VIII, 13, 2, whose 
contents are to the effect that the Spartans do not require long 
exhortations, and the Messenians trust to their valor, which, it is 
true, would agree very well with Myron’s account; but it is rather 
general in its application, and could easily belong to another source. 

The examination of the fragments so far shows that there is not 
sufficient evidence in them to prove that Diodorus drew on Myron 
for his account of the first Messenian war. The decision in the case 
of the Polychares fragment must be made therefore upon the merits 
of the latter alone. 


d), Polychares. 


We shall find on examining this fragment that on the one hand 
the differences between the two versions are too great for Myron to 
have been the source of both of them, and on the other hand that 
Pausanias’ version harmonizes with what is known of Myron’s 
style. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 21 


The Polychares story is only found in Pausanias and Diodorus, 
and, as regards the essentials, is about the same in both of these 
writers. But the mere telling of the same story is no proof of the 
identity of the source, as the essentials could haye been found in 
different writers just as we find them now in Pausanias and in 
Diodorus. Moreover, in comparing the two stories, differences in 
detail can be observed, and it will also be evident that the one in 
Pausanias is favorable to the Messenians, whereas the other has a 
flavor of Spartan sympathy. 

The differences in the two versions cannot be due to either Dio- 
dorus or Pausanias, for the former tells his story in the ace. and 
inf., and has evidently given a condensation ; and we know of the 
latter that his literary activity consisted mainly in condensing and 
compiling. Besides those parts wherein Pausanias differs from 
Diodorus are mainly in the line of animosity shown towards the 
Spartans. Accordingly the avariciousness of Euaephnus, which is 
an intrinsic part of the story, is merely stated in Diodorus, but 
sharply criticised in Pausanias (cf. p. 19). 

Both versions have by accident the same length, 7. ¢., 35 lines of 
the Teubner text. This however is brought about by the expand- 
ing of different parts of the story in the respective accounts. In 
Diodorus the conviction of Euaephnus is the principal part; in 
Pausanias this part is not only meagrely treated, but different. So 
we find that in Diodorus all the herdsmen escape and come back to 
Polychares ; in Pausanias only one. In Diodorus, after they have 
told their story they are concealed by Polychares, who sends for 
Euaephnus, and while this one is telling a fabricated story, Poly- 
chares confronts him with the escaped herdsmen. This marks a 
climax in Diodorus’ account, and has dramatic power. In Pausa- 
nias the single herdsman who escaped finds Euaephnus already with 
Polychares, which is tame. In Diodorus Polychares’ son, who is 
to be murdered, is only mentioned when he is sent with Euaephnus 
to receive the money for the cattle. In Pausanias Euaephnus pleads 
with the son as well as with the father to be forgiven, and then 
asks that the son go with him in order to receive the money, which 
makes the crime of Euaephnus in killing the young man appear all 
the blacker. In fact, the murder of Polychares’ son forms a climax 
in Pausanias’ account ; in Diodorus it is told without color. 

2 


22 A Study in the Sources of 


Finally, according to Diodorus, Polychares demands that the 
culprit be delivered up to him; but the Lacedaemonians send the 
son of Huaephnus to him with a letter, asking him to come to 
Sparta and lay his complaint before the Ephors and kings. Then 
Polychares commits a crime in his turn, and murders the son of 
Euaephnus, thus bringing destruction on his country. The story 
in Diodorus is clearly intended to bring discredit on the Messe- 
nians. According to Pausanias Polychares goes repeatedly to the 
kings and Ephors, and complains bitterly of his wrongs, and only 
after he finds that no attention is paid him does he become desperate 
and then kills every Lacedaemonian that falls into his hands. 

We have thus seen that Diodorus’ version of the Polychares story 
could not have been derived from Myron. At the same time the 
strong Messenian bias in Pausanias’ version, and the intimate con- 
nection and harmony of this story with the rest of the discussion 
concerning the causes of the war, make it highly probable that 
Myron served Pausanias also as a source for this part of the 
introduction. 

We have found, on examining the introduction and comparing 
it with the account of the war, that there are a number of striking 
resemblances in these two parts. So we find, not to mention other 
points, the same charges made against the Spartans in the introduc- 
tion that are referred to in the account of the war: moreover, the 
same partisanship, the same elaboration of detail, and the same style 
of romancing. If we read continuously, we shall find that there is 
no break at the place where the war begins, but all is closely linked 
together. The conclusion, therefore, seems justified that, leaving 
aside some minor additions, Pausanias did not compile his intro- 
duction to the Messenian wars from different sources, but that he 
depended entirely on Myron. 


III. Pavusantas’ SKETCH OF THE CLOSE OF THE 
First WAR. 


Let us now turn our attention to the end of Myron’s history of 
the first war, which must have been strangely cut short, if we are 
to trust to Pausanias, c. 6: 0 wév THS Te Apdhelas THY GXwow Kal 
Ta pens cuvéOnker, ov Tpdcw THS Apiotodnpov TerXeuvTHs. These 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 23 


words seem to have been taken literally by most scholars. So 
Enmann, Trog. Pomp., 124, says: “ Myron hatte den ersten Krieg 
nur bis zum Tode des Aristodemus erzihlt (Paus., IV, 6,2). In 
Folge dessen liisst es Pausanias ganz im Unklaren, wie der Krieg 
schliesslich geendet habe (Paus., IV, 13, 6).” That Pausanias 
himself did not take his own words literally can be seen in e. 23, 6: 
petoxnoe Sé “AXkidamidas éx Meoonvns és “Prjyiov peta THY 
*Apictodnuov Tod BaciNéws TerXevTIVY Kal lOemuns THY Gdoow. 
Here the death of Aristodemus and the fall of Ithome, events sepa- 
rated only by the space of five months, are treated as contempora- 
neous. If Myron had omitted to extend his history to the capture 
of Ithome, where could Pausanias have found an account of the 
end of the war as he gives it; very much condensed it is true, yet 
in perfect accord with the previous history ? For we must remem- 
ber that Myron’s account was to a large extent fictitious. 

A detailed examination of the text of Pausanias will show the 
close agreement with the previous history, c. 13, 5: Tots dé 
Meconviows ateyvwxéval Ta Tpadypata TapiotaTo, wate Kal 
Opuncav ixeciav és Tovs Aaxedaipovious amooTédAXEL OTA odo- 
Opa KatémAnkev avtovs 7 Tod ’Apiatodnmov TeXEVTH. Kal TOTO 
bev 0 Oupos erécyev avTovs pi Tornoat. The anger of the Mes- 
senians is a marked feature of Myron’s account (see p. 19 and ce. 
VI, a). Continuing, we find in c. 13, 5: cuddeyévtes be és 
é€xxdnaolav Baciréa pev ovdéva, Adm S€ oTpatnyov av’ToKpatopa 
e(Xovto. This democratic feature of the assembly was also peculiar 
to Myron, as the following passages will show: ce. 5,6; 6,6; 9,1; 
9,3; 9,4; 12,5. The freedom of speech implied in the above 
passages gave of course to Myron, the rhetorician, the desired 
opportunities to compose orations. There is no trace of the ékxAnota 
in the account of the second war. Having called the assembly, e. 
13, 5, they elect a leader as follows: Baowréa pev ovdéva, Adpu 
Sé otpatnyov avtoxpatopa etdovTo: 6 bé Kréovviv Te avTO Kai 
Duréa EdXopevos cuvdpyovtas K.T.X. Compare with this ec. 10, 6, 
where Aristodemus, on becoming king, shows marked attention to 
Kleonnis and Damis, who have been his rivals. It was then quite 
natural that Damis should later follow the precedent set by the king. 

The text continues: [Adis] waperxevdfero ws Kai éx TOV 
Tapovtay cvvdyrov payny* éernvayxate yap i) Te TodopKia Kal 


24 A Study in the Sources of 


ovyx HKtoTa 0 Amos Kai [TO] am’ avTod déos, wn Kal Tpodiaplapaow 
dro évédeias. This fighting before the walls of the besieged Ithome 
seems to have been a feature of Myron’s history. At no time did 
the Spartans actually attack the walls of this stronghold ; but even 
after retiring to Ithome all the fighting is done outside of the walls. 
It was different at the siege of Eira, for there the walls were scaled 
with ladders (c. 21, 1). 

The text continues: dperj pév 89 Kal TorApHpacw ovdé TOTE 
amedénae Ta TOV Meoonviwy aréBavov 8é of Te oTpaTHYoL ahiow 
dmavres Kal TOV ANNoV Ol AOyou pddioTa abvor. This heroism of 
the Messenians is the same that is displayed in the previous chap- 
ters. Finally we read: 70 6€ amo TovTov phvas pév Tou TéVTE 
uddiota avrécxov . wept dé Tov éviavTov AyyovTa éEéduTTOV THY 
"l0aunv, Todeujoartes Tn Ta TaVTA etKoct, KaOa dy Kal Tuptain 
Temounpéeva €aTiv. 


? a 1 eek 4 \ \ / ” / 
elKooT@ 80 ev KATA Tiova Epya NLTFOVTES 
hedyov l@wpaiwv éx weyadrov opéwr. 


It is not simply stated here that they fought twenty years ; but the 
time is measured out with care, so that we are made to see that the 
Messenians left Ithome at the close of the twentieth year. This 
seems to show that Pausanias followed Myron in writing the con- 
clusion of the war; but, as usual, found in Ephorus (see ec. IV, 6) 
the verses of Tyrtaeus, which he quotes. And as Ephorus inter- 
preted these verses to mean that the war lasted nineteen years (cf. 
Strabo, 279: Meoonvn 6€ éddXw TroreunOcica evveakaidexa ETH 
Kkabarep kai Tuptaios dnow “ aud’ avtiy x. T. d.), this may be the 
very reason why Pausanias, in adopting the usual number of twenty 
years, as Myron no doubt had it (cf. c. 12, 7: Kal yap eixootov 
éros émrner TO ToNEu@), laid some stress on this very point in oppo- 
sition to Ephorus’ nineteen years, and, curiously, chose the last two 
verses from a quotation from Tyrtaeus, which Ephorus had (Strabo, 
279) to prove this, although he quotes the other verses a few chap- 
ters below (c. 15, 2), as follows: aud’ adriv Séuayovt’ évvéa Kat 
d€x’ Tn, K.T. Xr. 

The above discussion shows, I think, that Myron did continue 
his history to the end of the war. The account Pausanias gives is 
probably very much condensed, and no doubt also full of omissions, 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 25 


just as we find the allusions Euphaes makes (c. 7, 10-11) to the 
horrors suffered by the inhabitants of Ampheia at the hands of the 
Lacedaemonians not fully justified by the account of its capture 
(c. 5, 9). It would have been unaccountable if Myron had really 
ended his history with the death of Aristodemus, in view of the 
comparatively broad manner in which he has treated the first war. 

It is however not so difficult to understand why Pausanias should 
have mentioned the death of Aristodemus instead of the capture of 
Ithome. For, as the narrative reaches its climax with the death of 
Aristodemus, and the end was then so near that Pausanias consid- 
ered the fall of Ithome as happening at the same time (see p. 23), 
it may be that Pausanias fixed the end of the war with the most 
important event. But there may have been also the following 
reasons: Myron did not represent the war he described as the first 
war (see c. V, a), nor did his history end with the fall of Ithome, 
as will be shown below. Therefore Pausanias had to construct a 
transition from Myron’s history to an account of the second war, 
and probably found it difficult to find a suitable point from which 
to bridge over. For that reason he directed his attention to the 
death of Aristodemus as the virtual conclusion of the first war, and 
condensed the final outcome so as hardly to mention the exiles, 
which probably made a transition to the second war easier. 





That Myron also wrote of the banishment of the Messenians is 
very probable, since I have shown that he extended his history to 
the capture of Ithome. This probability is strengthened when we 
observe that the exiles sought refuge with the Sicyonians, Argives 
and Arcadians, who had been the allies of the Messenians, and we 
consider that this alliance was probably the fiction of Myron (see 
eck): 

But this departure of the Messenians from Ithome implies that 
the Spartans allowed them to leave under a truce. Now we read 
in Thucydides, I, 103, that at the end of the third war the Messen- 
ians were allowed to depart, which may easily have been the source 
for the idea that at the end of the first and second wars (ec. 14, 1 
and c. 21, 12) the Messenians were allowed each time to depart. 
The account of Rhianus cannot be considered historical, and there 


26 A Study m the Sources of 


seems to be no other evidence outside of Pausanias that the Messen- 
ians left their country at the end of the first war, although we see 
in Strabo, 257, and Heracl. Pont.. Pol. (Miiller, Frag. Hist. Gr., 
219), that there had been some Messenian fugitives before the first 
war. Accordingly, we read in the sketch of the Messenian wars 
given by Diodorus, XV, 66, only of the banishment after the third 
war. 

It therefore appears likely that Pausanias had no other source 
for the exile after the first war than Myron, who, as we have seen 
(p. 12), used Thucydides as a model. A sign of this dependence 
may be seen in c. 14, 4, where it is stated that the Lacedaemonians 
made the Messenians swear not to revolt, which seems a somewhat 
useless exaction, and was probably an imitation of Thuc., I, 103, 
according to which passage the Messenians are allowed to depart on 
condition that they should never return to the Peloponnesus under 
penalty of becoming the slave of whosoever might capture them. 


IV. TuHeE Sources FoR CHAapters XIV-XVII OTHER 
THAN Myron. 


a). I next undertake to investigate the sources which Pausanias 
used in writing the first half of the second Messenian war. We 
have therefore to do with the chapters which lie between the close 
of the first war, which Myron described, and the beginning of 
Rhianus’ epic (7. e., ec. 14-17, 10). According to c. 6, Pausanias 
had neither Myron nor Rhianus to depend on for this part, as the 
former had nothing to say about the second war, and Rhianus’ 
poem must have begun with the siege of Kira (ec. 17, 11). 

It is easy to see that Pausanias used no single source for filling 
in these chapters. In the first place, with regard to the duration of 
the war, there exists a discrepancy between the account in Pausa- 
nias, according to which it lasted fourteen years, and the dates 
given by him, according to which it lasted seventeen years. A sign 
of Pausanias’ greater activity in these chapters can be seen in the 
more frequent employment of the first person (cf. cc. 14, 78 ; 15, 2; 
15,3; 16,6; 16,7). Then in c. 14, 2, he repeats, with some 
slight changes, a passage which occurs in ITI, 18, 8. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 27 


The sources which Pausanias used in writing chapters cc. 14-17, 
10, seem to have been Ephorus, Sosibius, Rhianus, and more par- 
ticularly, as I shall show inc. V, Myron. I shall take them up 
in order. 


b). Ephorus and Tyriaeus. 


Kohlmann (op. cit., 23), thought that Pausanias had drawn on 
Ephorus and Diodorus for these chapters, but that the quotations 
were taken from Tyrtaeus at first hand. I think, however, that 
Ephorus was used only to a slight extent, and that chiefly to get 
the quotations from Tyrtaeus. 

That Pausanias was familiar with the history of Ephorus, 
although he does not mention his name, is @ priori quite likely, as 
Ephorus’ history was widely read and largely excerpted by later 
historians, owing no doubt in a great measure to convenient arrange- 
ment. But there is also direct proof that Pausanias made extracts 
from him in book III (cf. Immerwahr, op. cit. 11 and 17), and, as 
the frequent references show, this book was closely associated in 
Pausanias’ mind with the one under consideration. Cf. III, 1, 1-5; 
2.6; 3; 1-4: 7, 4-5; 11,8; 13,1; 14,4; 15,10; 18, 7; 2076; 
26, 3; 26, 6-8. 

Now as Myron had included Aristomenes in his account of the 
first war, and this same Aristomenes was the chief figure in Rhia- 
nus’ poem, Pausanias had to decide which of these two to follow. 
He accordingly gives some reasons in c. 6 why he intends to follow 
Rhianus ; but as Rhianus dealt only with a part of the war, and 
was himself untrustworthy, according to Pausanias’ own statement, 
we must look elsewhere for some clear guide, who could map out 
the first and second wars, and show from the proper position of 
Aristomenes that Rhianus was the one to be followed. Ephorus 
could have been that guide, for he gives a sketch of the two wars, 
and distinctly states that Aristomenes took part in the second war 


(Diod., XV, 66). 


As to the quotations from Tyrtaeus, these have been pretty gen- 
erally looked upon as being at first hand. Yet we cannot trust 
Pausanias in this respect, for, as Enmann (Jahrb. f. Phil., 129, p. 


28 A Study in the Sources of 


519) says, we must expect Pausanias to have made use of the labors 
of others, or else he would never have succeeded in collecting such 
a great mass of learning. Besides, there are other quotations in 
Pausanias which seem to be at first hand, although taken from an 
intermediate source. 

Thus in ec. 1 there are quotations from Homer which are at 
second hand, although they seem to have been made independently, 
and although Pausanias would make us believe that he was especi- 
ally well versed in Homer. In II, 21,10, he says: mpooke:pac 
yap WAéov TL of NoLTrOL TH ‘Opnpov rroujoes ; and in II, 4,2: 
éya Te TelOowat Kat boTis TA ‘Ounpov pn mdapepyov émenréEaTo. 
And yet, on comparing Paus., c. 1, with Strabo, 364, it is plain 
that both passages go back ultimately to the same source, which 
was probably Aristarchus (cf. Sengebusch, Jahkrbiicher f. Cl. Phil., 
1853, p. 615). Enmann and L. v. Sybel have shown the close 
resemblance between Pausanias and Strabo generally in Homeric 
geography, a resemblance due to their common source. 

Now we know that Ephorus based his history on the verses of 
Tyrtaeus (cf. O. Miller, Dorier, I, 149, 3; Busolt, Gr. Gesch. I, 
134; Enmann, Zrog. Pomp., 126); and we find in Strabo, 279, 
under Ephorus’ name, the same verses from Tyrtaeus. which are 
quoted by Pausanias (c. 13, 6, and c. 15, 2). As regards the 
former of these passages it must be observed that Pausanias sepa- 
rated the verses from their proper connection in order to make his 
own application of them (see p. 25). This he did likewise with the 
verses of Homer mentioned above, whose application in Pausanias 
is different from that in Strabo. Again, the verses of Tyrtaeus 
quoted in c. 14, 5, which tell of the sufferings of the Messenians, 
were no doubt also quoted by Ephorus, as they are indicated in 
Justinus, ITI, 5 (ef. Enmann, Zrog. Pomp.): Dein, cum per annos 
octoginta gravia servitutis verbera, plerumque et vincula, ceteraque 
captivitatis mala perpessi essent, post longam poenarum patientiam, 
bellum instaurant. 

It seems also reasonable to suppose that the quotation (c. 6, 5) 
from Tyrtaeus, 


“Huetépw Bacirhi Oeoior ditw OcorrouTra, 
“Ov dca Meconvny efropev evpvxopor, ' 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 29 


was taken from Ephorus. Pausanias cited them to demonstrate 
that Theopompus had survived the first war, thus showing the 
inaccuracy of Myron, according to whom Theopompus had been 
killed before the death of Aristodemus by Aristomenes (see ec. IT, ¢). 
But Ephorus had in all probability to deal with the same question 
as to the period of Aristomenes, and so the statement in Diod., XV, 
66: évioe b€ Tov ’Aptotopévny yeyovévat hac Kata TOV EiKoTaETH 
moXenov, was in all likelihood taken from Ephorus with the rest 
of that sketch. 

Again, when Pausanias in c. 15, 2-3, seems to reason out the 
interval between the first two wars on the basis of the verses of 
Tyrtaeus, we shall be safe in attributing this use of these verses to 
his imitation of Ephorus, who quotes the same verses (Strabo, 279), 
and had to make a similar calculation. If Pausanias had to make 
his quotations from Tyrtaeus independently we might expect to see 
some feeling for the Spartans displayed, but there is none of this, 
and Tyrtaeus himself is but a shadowy figure in the pages of 
Pausanias. 


c). Sosibius. 


Pausanias did, however, not follow Ephorus in his chronology, 
who placed the first war much earlier than 743 B. C. (Paus., c. 5, 
10; Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I., 151), and made the interval between 
the first and second war eighty years (cf. Enmann, op. cit., 126). 
It is the chronology of Sosibius which Pausanias follows. Kohl- 
mann was the first to show this by pointing out that the dates for 
the first war, which Pausanias gives, agree with the chronology of 
Sosibius ; and Immerwahr, following up the work done by Weber,’ 
has shown that a work on genealogy by Sosibius had been exten- 
sively used by Pausanias in book ITT, and probably to some extent 
in book IV. He also makes it appear highly probable that the 
chronology of Sosibius had been used for the second war. Yet 
Immerwahr lays rather too much stress upon the use Pausanias 
made of Sosibius in the Messeniaca. See Immerwahr, Lakonika, 
158, sqq. 


1 Quaestionum Laconicarum Capita Duo. Gottingae, 1887. 


30 A Study in the Sources of 


d), Reasons why Ephorus’ History not used more Extensively. 


But why should Pausanias not use Ephorus’ history more exten- 
sively if he had it before him? Simply because it was so widely 
known, and the plan of Pausanias was to avoid telling over again 
at length what other well known authors had described before him. 
In VIII, 43, 4, he refrains from going into details; for he says: 
Tade ev AdNroL eyparyay és TO axpiBéotatov ; likewise in I, 23, 
10: ta dé és “EpporvKov tov mayxpatiactny Kat Popuiwva Tov 
"Acwrixyou ypaavtwv étépwv trapinus ; yet he is ever ready to 
make additions to what is generally known, so he continues: és dé 
Dopuiwva tocovde éyw wréov ypavar. In X, 17, we find three 
and three-fourths pages on the island of Sardinia; his reason for 
this long digression being that this island was little known to the 
Greeks, just as it has been comparatively little known in modern 
times’ (cf. also II, 30, 10; III, 17, 7; III, 18, 10). Now it was 
the highly colored narrative of Myron and the epic of Rhianus 
which Pausanias recognized as being less known, and which he 
therefore was quite willing to draw upon. 

But I must add another reason why Pausanias would prefer the 
accounts of Myron and Rhianus, and that is because they were 
written from the Messenian point of view. It was evidently part 
of the plan of Pausanias to let each people of the different countries 
which he described speak for themselves, even in the historical 
introductions, which, as is generally accepted, were taken from 
literary sources. As regards the use of verba dicendi where literary 
sources are at hand, Gurlitt (op. cit., c. 1, N. 48) has shown that 
this was a matter of style with Pausanias and not of deception. 
Observe the following passages—I, 41, 4: éym dé ypadew pev 
eOéxw Meyapedow oporoyodvta, 41, 7: ypayw 8 Kal Ta és 
avTnv oTroia Meyapels Néyovow. In the Corinthiaka he appeals 
to the Corinthians, II, 1: Avos 8€ evar KopivOov ovdéva oida 
elTrovTa Tw aTroven TANY KopwOiwv Tov Tord@v; II, 4,6: “Hrcov 
5é, ws of KodivOcoi dacw. Likewise he appeals to the Sicyonians 
in II, 5, 6: Yexvevvoe dé, obTot yap TavTn KopwO iors eicty 6popot, 
TEPL THS XOpas THs opetépas reyouow. Having come to Argos 


‘Daniel, Lehrbuch. d. Geogr., 1882, p. 212. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 31 


he lets the Argives speak for themselves (II, 21, 8), though fol- 
lowing right upon an account of Gorgophone, who is spoken of 
again in IIT, 1, 4, and ¢. 2, 4, an account very probably taken from 
a literary source. On coming to Lacedaemon we read, III, 1, 1: 
as S€ adrol Aaxedatpovior Néyouot, AéXeE adtoyOov, which heads 
the current genealogy ; and it is not likely that Pausanias here neg- 
lected the already existing genealogical lists and prepared a new one 
(ef Kalkmann, Paus. d. Perieget, 15). 

A curious example illustrating Pausanias’ plan to let each people 
tell its own story, even when literary sources were used, is seen in 
the account of the mother of Aselepius. In II, 26, 6—9, Pausanias 
accepts the story that the Epidaurians tell and rejects the Messenian 
version, and says: 0 8€ tpitos TOY Oyo HKicta, €uol SoKeiv, ady- 
Ons éotiv, Apowons Toiuncas eivar THs Aevxitrmou Traida’ AcKkXn- 
mov, K.T.rX. And again: ovTos 0 ypnopos Sydol padiota ovK 
dvta AokArnmuov Apowons, adda ‘Hotodov 1) Tov Twa eurreTroinKo 
tov és Ta Howddov ta érn avvbévta és THY Meconviwy yap. 
Yet on turning to c. 32, we read: "Apowvons yap “Ackdnmuov THs 
Aecuximmou xai ov Kopewvides matéa eivar; again, in c. 31, 12: 
"AckAnTlos, Apowons av NOyo TO Meconviwv. In III, 26, 4, 
the Messenian version is also mentioned without dispute ; here we 
must remember the intimate connection between books ITI and IV. 
That Pausanias had not forgotten the Epidaurian version is made 
certain by the words «ai ov Kopavidos tatéa eivat, nor is it likely 
that he would have forgotten when we consider the emphatic rejec- 
tion of the Messenian version in II, 26, 6-9. 

The apparent change of his opinion is explained simply by the 
fact that he wishes each people to tell its own story. Now the 
accounts of Myron and Rhianus were both written from the Messe- 
nian point of view, and hence were accepted by Pausanias as utter- 
ances of Messenians. 


e). Rhianus. 


Although Rhianus did not write about the battles that preceded 
the retreat to Eira, yet just as he is quoted in c. 1, 6, so it is very 
likely that Rhianus furnished some material for these intervening 
chapters. Thus in c. 14, 7, the mother of Aristomenes, Niko- 
teleia, is mentioned ; but from Stephanus Byzantinus we learn that 


32 A Study in the Sources of 


Rhianus had mentioned her in his fourth book (s. v. A@zvov). Yet 
Pausanias has here only a fragmentary notice, as can be seen by 
the matter that follows, which has been partly given in ITI, 10, 3. 
Immerwahr suggests that Rhianus furnished in ec. 17, 1, the story 
of the expedition to Aigila, where Aristomenes is captured by 
women, and liberated by Archidameia, an old love of his (ef. 
Polyden., II, 31, 2); but this may be doubted, because a romance 
like that could very well have belonged to Myron’s story. See 
also c. VI, 6, for the significance of the fact that Demeter enters 
into this anecdote. But no doubt there were other touches here 
and there, introduced into these chapters from Rhianus, as viz., the 
names of the seers Theoclus and Hecas. 


e 


V. Myron THE CHIEF SouURCE FOR CHAPTERS XIV-—X VII 


a). Myron used Tradition that pertained to the Second War. 


To a much larger extent, however, was Myron’s history used. 
Before showing this in detail it will be necessary to explain how 
this was possible; for, as it is generally understood, Myron wrote 
only the history of the first war. Above (p. 12) it was pointed 
out that Myron wrote rather a romance than a history. To this 
fact must be added another, viz., that Myron made use of the tradi- 
tion relating to the second war as well as of that which pertained 
to the first. 

That Myron should have ignored the existence of the second 
Messenian war, although the verses of Tyrtaeus clearly show that 
there had been two early wars, is not at all unlikely, for there are 
passages from other writers which likewise overlook the existence 
of the second war. To understand this it must be observed that it 
was only natural that the minds of men would revert to the war 
through which the Messenians first lost their liberty. Thus Iso- 
crates, Archidam., 57, refers only to the first war. Likewise 
Plutarch, De Superstitione, 8, in making a reference to the war in 
which Aristodemus figured (i. e., the first war), makes no distinc- 
tion between a first and a second war, but simply refers to “the 
war with the Lacedaemonians.” 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 33 


Again we read in Plutarch, De 8. N. V., p. 548, F: ri yap 
Meconviow dpedos Tots Tpoavwpebeias THs ApistoKpdtous Tipmo- 
plas, 0s mpodovs tHv emi Tadp@ paynv Kal AaOav wrrép elxoow 
éTn Kal... VoTepov édwxe Sixnv. Here Aristocrates, who betrayed 
the Messenians, according to Paus., c. 17, in the second war, is 
placed in the first. The first war is evidently the one referred to 
in this passage, for the second war lasted at most only seventeen 
years, and Aristocrates, according to Pausanias (c. 22), was pun- 
ished soon after the capture of Kira: that is, eleven years after his 
betrayal. It must of course be admitted that, even if Plutarch is 
made to refer to the first war, the lapse of twenty years before the 
punishment of Aristocrates cannot be made out, because the be- 
trayal would have taken place about five years after the beginning 
of the war; but in a loose reference such as the above evidently 
was, the period of twenty years was probably suggested by the fact 
that the first war was known as a twenty years war. 

Another very striking confusion of the two wars is to be found 
in Suidas, where Tyrtaeus is associated with the twenty years war 
(see c. V,d). Finally, that others besides Myron had connected 
Aristomenes with the first war has been shown above (see p. 11). 





Further evidence to show that the two wars were not sharply 
defined in tradition can be found in the similar features which 
appear in Myron’s and Rhianus’ account; or, perhaps, this simi- 
larity merely shows that Myron made no distinction. In the first 
place, we must call to mind that Pausanias omitted all that related 
to Aristomenes from his account of the first war. But even so, we 
see that raids, which mode of carrying on war was peculiar to 
Aristomenes in the second war, were also made in the first, as 
Pausanias tells it (cf. c. 7,1, sqg. and c. 10, 7, with ec. 18, 1, sqq.). 
Nearly all the exploits of Aristomenes were performed with small 
bodies of picked men. The Messenians are called Xoyddes in the 
first war (c. 11, 4), although there is no mention of Aristomenes. 

Again, we find in both accounts mention of the desperation of 
the Messenians. This was natural enough from the point of view 
of the known outcome of these wars (cf. ce. 6, 6; 8, 4, with c. 21, 
5). Likewise we have heroic sacrifice in both accounts. In the 


34 A Study in the Sources of 


first war Tisis delivers his message and dies (c. 9, 4); Aristodemus 
sacrifices his daughter (c. 9, 8); Euphaes dies a heroic death (ce. 10, 
3); Aristodemus commits suicide (c. 13, 4). In the second war 
Theoclus rushes into the enemies’ lines and is slain (c..21, 10); 
Kuergetides with fifty volunteers allows himself to be cut to pieces 
by the Spartans (c. 28, 2). In both wars seers are active. In the 
first war (ce. 10, 5), Epebolus and Ophioneus oppose the election of 
Aristodemus ; in the second Theoclus and Hecas take a prominent 
part. 

In the account of Myron, as well as in that of Rhianus, the 
contending parties look upon the Messenian territory as already 
belonging to the Lacedaemonians (cf. c. 7, 1, with c. 18, 1). This 
appears a little strange in Myron’s account, because Messenia had 
not yet been conquered, and such an event was at that time (c. 7, 
1) remote. 

Again, in both accounts the howling of dogs is associated with 
the close of the respective wars (1. e., c. 13, 1, and c. 21,1). In 
Plut. De Superstitione, 8, the howling of dogs is mentioned in a 
passage which bears a strong resemblance to Paus., c. 13, 1; so 
much so that Plutarch must have drawn either from Myron or, 
what is more probable, from Myron’s source. On the other hand, 
in Diod., VIII, 6, the howling of dogs is also mentioned as taking 
place in the first war, but in a different connection from that in 
Paus., c. 13, 1, which illustrates very well the confused condition 
of the tradition. 

For the occurrence of Corinthians in both accounts see ec. V, ¢, 
end. 

Cretan archers figure as allies of the Lacedaemonians in Myron’s 
account as well as in that of Rhianus (ef. ec. 8,3; 8,12; 10, 1; 
with ce. 19, 4; 20, 8). This must have been overlooked by O. 
Miiller, Dorier, I, 144, 6, who says: ‘“ Die Kretischen Bogen- 
schiitzen hat Rhianus aus seiner Heimat hinein gebracht ; es gab 
gewiss da so friih keine Sdldlinge,” which remark was adopted by 
Meineke, Abhandlungen, Berlin, 1832, and Kohlmann, op. cit. 19. 
For the fact that Cretans also play a réle in Myron’s account seems 
to imply that they figured in the tradition. And yet Cretans are 
mentioned as hired troops in Thuec., VII, 57, 9, and as archers 
ibid., VI, 25, 2, and 48, which is significant for Myron since he 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 35 


worked out his history, as Busolt has shown, from a frame-work 
which he derived from Thucydides and Xenophon (see p. 12). 

In c. 6 Pausanias almost tells us that Myron had written of the 
first two Messenian wars as if they had constituted but one. We 
can plainly see in this chapter, where Pausanias discusses the works 
of Myron and Rhianus, the influence of both these writers: that of 
Rhianus in the reference to the Iliad (ec. 6, 13) and the Trojan war 
(c. 6,1); that of Myron in the sentence (c. 6, 3): "Apuotopévnv, 
Os Kal TP@TOS Kal wadicta TO Meconvns dvoma €s aEiwpa Tpon- 
yaye, TovTOv Tov avdpa ereconyaye jev 6 IIpinveds és THY cuyypa- 
gyv. The attribute zparos could have been applied by Pausanias 
to Aristomenes only in case this one had figured in the first war, 
for otherwise Kuphaes and Aristodemus would have preceded him. 
Now it was, in my opinion, the influence of Myron which induced 
Pausanias (c. 6) to speak of the two wars together as one war. 
This he does very clearly (c. 6, 1), and it is easy to see him gradu- 
ally making a distinction. After speaking several times of the 
two wars together as one, he makes the statement (c. 6, 2) that 
Myron wrote only from the taking of Ampheia to the death of 
Aristodemus, and then calls that part of the first war. Such a 
development would have been superfluous if Myron’s history had 
not contained so much tradition that pertained to the second war. 


b). Certain parts dealing with Aristomenes from Myron. 


Let us now see what parts of cc. 14-17, 10, can be referred to 
Myron. Most of the passages will naturally contain matter 
concerning Aristomenes, for he was the hero of the second war. 
Pausanias (c. 6) tells us that Rhianus’ poem began with the events 
after the battle of the Great Trench (c¢. 17), and on the other hand 
that Myron had included Aristomenes in his history, and adds: 
6 toivuy Apiotopévns Oo&n ye éun yéyovev él Tov TorEmou TOD 
vatépou, Kal Ta és avTov, émedav €§ TODTO 0 AOYos adixnTat, 
ThvikavTta erréE Ere. 

According to Diod., XV, 66, Aristomenes alone persuaded the 
Messenians to revolt, which agrees with the prominence Rhianus 
assigns to him, and is justified by Polybius (IV, 33), who calls the 
second one the “ war of Aristomenes.” But in Pausanias others 


36 A Study in the Sources of 


besides Aristomenes urged the Messenians to revolt (c. 14, 6-8), 
which agrees with Myron’s history, where the whole Messenian 
people are prominently brought out. Moreover, the words in ec. 
14, 6-7, évijryov S€é ovx iKLoTa és TOUTO Kal Of VewTEpOL, TrONEWOU 
pev ere ametpas exovtes . . . Erretpadn b€ veotns Kal adraxod 
ths Meoonvias, of 6€ adpiotot Kat aplOuov mrEioToL TrEepi THY 
’AvSaviav, remind one of Thuc., II, 8: rote dé Kal veotns moAdy 
pev ovoa ev tH IleXomovyjow, todd 6'év tais “AOjvats ovK 
aKovalos UmTo amrelplas HrTEeTO* TOD TroAéuouv K.T.r., and it was 
shown above that Myron depended on Thucydides. That Aris- 
tomenes was not the only one of the youth of Andania who played 
a prominent part can be seen in the story about Panormus and 
Gonippus (cf. c. 27, 1). We also read that Aristomenes was 
elected to be king, but refused the title, whereupon they made 
him otparnyos avtoxpatwp (c. 15, 4). This statement seems 
strange in this place, when we consider that Aristomenes in the 
second war, from first to last, directed the war, and there was no 
king nor general to share his power. On the other hand, this title 
would have been quite suitable in the first war, where there were 
kings to wield the chief power, so that Aristomenes could have 
earried on his guerilla warfare. Besides we have seen above that 
the title otpatnyos avtoxpdtwp occurred in Myron’s history (ef. 
p. 23). 

The passage (c. 16, 3) telling about Aristomenes and his picked 
men at the battle of Capron Sema, was probably derived from 
Myron. Pausanias says ine. 16,3: Kara 8é adrov ’Apiotopévnv 
ELyev OUTW * NoAbES TEP aUTOV bydonKoVvTa Hoav Meconviar, K. 
7. ; but in the Rhianus part, c. 18, 1, we read: “Apsotopévns dé 
TOUS Trept avTOV Noydbas és TpLaKociwv apLOuov Tponyayev. Now 
in Thue., VI, 43, we find: tofotass 8é tols wacw dySonKovta 
Kal TeTpaxkoatous (Kal ToUT@Y Kpfres of dydonKovta Haav), where 
a select company of eighty is made conspicuous. We have seen 
above (p. 34) that Myron had possibly introduced Cretans into his 
account from Thucydides. 


At the battle of the Great Trench, at which the Arcadian king 
Aristocrates betrayed the Messenians, Aristomenes, according to 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 37 


Pausanias, led his countrymen. We have already seen the likeli- 
hood that Plutarch had associated this event with the twenty years’ 
war (p. 32). The following considerations point clearly to Myron 
as Pausanias’ source for this battle. Almost the first words of this 
account seem noteworthy (ce. 17, 2): «al Meoonviow ’ApKadwv 
BeBonOnkoTav aro Tacév Tov TONEwY, When compared with a 
passage in the account of the first war (ec. 11, 1): Tots 6¢ Meconvi- 
ous of Te Apxades tTavotpatia, for it seems very improbable that 
the whole of Arcadia would have participated in these struggles, 
and we may see, therefore, in this a bit of Myron’s romancing. 
Then, upon the statement that the Lacedaemonians bribed the 
Arcadian king Aristocrates, follows (¢. 17, 3-5) a long tirade against 
the Spartans, who are said to have been the first to resort to bribery 
in war. The animosity displayed here is quite of a piece with that 
which has been shown to have been so prominent a feature in 
Myron’s history. Besides it must be remembered that Pausanias’ 
own attitude was that of an impartial historian (see c. VI, a, end). 
The threat of retribution made in ¢. 17, 6, also agrees with Myron’s 
history (see c. VII,65). In c. 17, 6, there are indications that 
Aristocrates delivered a speech. Inc. 17, 7, the Eleans, Argives 
and Sicyonians are mentioned, which allies (as will be shown below) 
were very probably spoken of only in Myron’s account. 

In c. 17, 8, follows a detail which, by its very strangeness, re- 
minds one of ec. 7, where the Messenians, who are stationed before 
an impassable trench, made a rampart of stakes, not only on their 
flanks and on their rear, but also on their front. Here we are told 
that the Arcadians, who occupied the left wing and centre, when 
treacherously made to retreat by Aristocrates, are furthermore led 
through the lines of the Messenians, dca yap Meconviwr érrovetto THY 
guynv, and this was done while the Spartans were advancing. This, 
then, would appear to be some of Myron’s unmilitary romancing. 

As the Arcadians pass through the lines of the Messenians, the 
latter chide them for their treachery, as follows : of d€ Kai Nosdopiats 
és avTovs ws és avdpas Tpodotas Kal ov diKaious éxpavTo, which 
reminds the reader of the passage in the first war, where the con- 
tending armies indulge in mutual abuse (c. 8, 2): & Te Novdopias 
mponyovto, K.T.rX. The great expectations of the Messenians were 
thus dashed to the ground by one blow. Aaxedarpoviwv Seamotas 


3 


38 A Study in the Sources of 


avtt Sovrwv écecOat vowifovtas. It was not owing to the fact 
that the Messenians had already been slaves that avti Sov av is 
used, for as already mentioned, these accounts of the early Messe- 
nian wars were written from the point of view of later times; and 
moreover, in tke account of the first war (c. 8, 2), the Lacedaemo- 
nians are made to say: of péev oikétas avTav On Tos Meconviovs 
Kal ovodev eXevOepwtépous aTroxaXobvTes TOV Kikwtov. As far as 
the accounts in Pausanias go, the Messenians had a far better right 
to expect to become the masters of the Spartans in the early part 
of the first war than at any period of the second. 

Now the account of this battle would fill a palpable gap in Pau- 
sanias (c. 9,1). We read inc. 8 of such a gallant struggle being 
made by the Messenians that they seemed in a fair way to come 
out of the war victorious. Notwithstanding all this, in the fol- 
lowing chapter everything suddenly takes an evil turn, for which 
no adequate explanation is offered. ‘The principal reason alleged 
for this unfortunate turn of affairs is that the Messenians had to 
spend large sums in guarding the different towns ; and yet in c. 7, 
2, we are told that the Lacedaemonians, having found them well 
fortified, had given up their attacks upon them. The story of the 
treachery of Aristocrates would give a sufficient explanation of this 
sudden change of fortune. 

Finally the passage in the account of the second war which tells 
of the retreat of the Messenians to Mt. Eira, bears a striking 
resemblance to the one in the account of the first war, that tells of 
the retreat to Mt. Ithome (c. 17, 10): "Apsoropévns S€ wera thy 
payny Tors Siatrepevyotas TOV Meconviwy cvvynOporte, Kal ’Avéa- 
viav pev Kal el Te ddAO ev pecoyaia TOMCpa erELTE TA TOAKA 
éxrelreuy, és O€ THY Kipay TO dpos avorxifecOat; with this com- 
pare c. 9,1: PBovrevopévors S€ mpos Ta Tapovta édoKer TA peV 
TOAAA TON TMATA TA és pEegoyaLay TaVTa éxNéiTreL, és SE TO dpos 
avoukitecBat THY "lOepunv. 


c). The Allies. 


Let us now examine the allies who are mentioned by Pausanias. 
If we should follow the statement in Strabo, 362 (of which passage 
O. Miller, Dorier, I, 149, 3, says: ‘Es ist deutlich dass dieses 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 39 


alles aus Tyrtaeus ist”), we should conclude that in the first war 
the Messenians had no allies, but in the second were assisted by 
the Argives, Eleans, Pisatans and Arcadians. How is it then that 
in Pausanias’ account such an important part is played by the allies 
in the first war? The reason is, in my opinion, that Myron, in 
the case of the allies too, combined the traditions concerning the 
second war with those of the first. But if the names that Strabo 
gives of the allies are the traditional ones, we might expect Myron 
to have the same. Yet an exact correspondence with Strabo need 
not be looked for here, and we notice in Pausanias that Sicyonians 
take the place of the Pisatans. At the same time it must be 
remarked that the names mentioned by Strabo are not altogether 
certain (cf. Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 165, 1; O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 
149, 3). 

The handiwork of Myron may be recognized in the amount of 
detail given concerning the allies in the first war, which stands in 
sharp contrast with the scanty notice of allies in Strabo, and with 
the fact that Thucydides, I, 15, knows of no wars in early times 
in which there was a general participation of different states. 

If now we turn to the second war we find nearly the same allies 
taking part as in the first. ‘This is not because Pausanias depended 
in this part on Ephorus or some other source, but because Pausa- 
nias, in reconstructing the gap, introduced the same allies that he 
found in Myron’s history. Busolt, Gir. Gesch., I, 165, 1, seems to 
recognize this when he says: “ Was Pausanias, IV, 15, 7, iiber die 
beiderseitigen Bundesgenossen sagt, hat keinen Wert.” Vel. Busolt, 
Lakedaim., 1, 101, 48. “Es ist eine freie Komposition der die 
politische Gruppierung im Jahre 418 zum Vorbilde diente.” This 
remark, according to the generally accepted notion of the extent of 
Myron’s history, ought to have been applied only to the allies 
mentioned in the first war (ef. p. 13). No doubt Pausanias knew 
from Ephorus that some of these allies had assisted the Messenians 
in the second war, but from lack of detail he was obliged to have 
recourse to Myron, in which he seemed justified, as Myron had 
evidently taken other features of the second war along with the 
stories about Aristomenes into his account. 

A close examination will show that the allies are more intimately 
interwoven with the events of the first war than with those of the 


40) A Study in the Sources of 


second, and that the passages in which they are cited in the second 
war were all, or nearly so, merely imitations of those in the first. 
This demonstrates again that Pausanias was not following here a 
connected account, but was piecing together parts from different 
sources. I shall content myself with merely mentioning the pas- 
sages where allies are referred to in the first war (@. e., cc. 8,3; 10, 
1:10)6 2 siOR Te elds. 1S sl een ONS tld) 

The passages where they are spoken of in the account of the 
second war are: cc. 14,8; 15,1; 15,4; 15,7; 15,8; 16,2; 17, 
9; 19,1; 23, 5. In the first of these (c. 14, 8) we are told that 
Aristomenes sent secretly to Argos and Arcadia to ask whether they 
would assist the Messenians as readily as they had done in the first 
war. This cannot be from Rhianus, who probably had nothing or 
next to nothing about allies, and no one besides Pausanias and 
Myron could have known of any such help being given the Messe- 
nians in the first war. Now we read in the account of the first war 
(c. 12, 3) that, when the Lacedaemonians had sent embassies to 
these very Arcadians and Argives in order to win them from their 
alliance with the Messenians, Aristodemus sent an embassy not to 
these states to counteract the influence of the Spartans, but to the 
oracle—Pausanias’ words being: wéues Kat adtos épnoopévous 
tov Geov, which is an indication of an omission at this point, as the 
sending to the oracle has clearly nothing to do with the attempt of 
the Spartans to break up the alliance, and it is to be noted that 
there is no further reference made to this embassy. Bearing in 
mind that Aristomenes had been omitted from Myron’s history, it 
seems likely that his sending secretly to Argos and Arcadia (c. 14, 
8) was transferred by Pausanias from its original connection in 
c. 12,3. The only change necessary to make ce. 14, 8 fit in here 
is that of éwi tod wodéuov Tov mpoTtépov to él THS waxns THS 
mpotépas (i. e., the battle described in e. 11). 

Again, in c. 15, 1 we are told that the allies were more eager for 
war than had been expected, and that the hate of the Argives and 
Arcadians was intense. This seems however to be an idle asser- 
tion, for the allies do not come until nearly two years later. So 
again, inc. 15, 4, they are mentioned, but only to say that they 
were not present at the battle of Derae. The mention of the hatred 
of the Argives and Arcadians in the above passage (c. 15, 1) 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 41 


reminds us of the passage (c. 10, 7) in the account of the first war, 
where the hostile acts of the Arcadians and the enmity of the 
Argives are spoken of. Likewise the absence of the allies men- 
tioned in c. 15, 4, may be compared with a similar absence spoken 
of inc. 10,1. It is noteworthy that in the second war, as in the 
first, the allies do not participate until the war has made some pro- 
gress ; but notice is taken of them in both accounts more than once 
before the descriptions are given of the two battles in which they 
figure. These battles then seem to be of corresponding magnitude. 

Before describing these battles the allies on both sides are enumer- 
ated, which passages in the two accounts (c. 11 and ¢. 15, 7-8) bear 
a striking resemblance to each other. A comparison, however, 
will show that in the first war the allies form an integral part of 
the army ; in the second their position in the line of battle is not 
even mentioned, and the talk about the allies seems to be only a 
rough setting for the recital of Aristomenes’ deeds of valor. 

It is curious to see in c. 15, 7, how the catalogue of allies was 
made to swell. In the first place there came to the assistance of 
the Messenians the Eleans, Arcadians, Argives and Sicyonians. Of 
these the Eleans befriended the Messenians at the end of the second 
war (c. 23, 5), which Pausanias knew from Rhianus (cf. also ¢. 17, 
7, and c. V,c, end); but the Arcadians, Argives and Sicyonians 
are mentioned together in cc. 10,6, 11,1, and 11, 2, each time in 
this order, and once in ce. 14, 1, in the opposite order. In the latter 
place we learn that the fugitive Messenians seek refuge with them. 

It is also worth noticing that it is stated in the account of the 
second war (c. 14, 8) that Aristomenes sent only to Argos and 
Arcadia for assistance, and yet the Sicyonians also come, which 
reminds one of the passage (c. 10, 6) in the account of the first 
war, where we learn that Aristodemus had sent presents to all three 
states. All of which shows that Pausanias drew on Myron in his 
efforts to construct the first part of the second Messenian war. 

In c. 15, 8, the Corinthians and Lepreates are mentioned as the 
allies of the Spartans. It is safe to say that the connection that 
these states are represented as having had with the early Messenian 
wars also lacks all historical basis. O. Miller, Dorier, I, 144, 6, 
commenting on the unhistorical nature of some of the statements 
made in Pausanias concerning these wars, says: ‘‘ Wie kamen 


ge 
APV\BRAR 
PY AUS that ret 
fi OF THE \ 
i is mr =\y 
UNIVERSITY 
4 = PR Di 
\ ee OF ; f 
x ~ f ic INI LT 44 
, ‘al, N\A 


er 


42 A Study in the Sources of 


Korinther nach Lakonien, ohne durch feindliches Gebiet zu gehen, 
und wer hitte sie durchgelassen” (cf. Paus., c. 11, 8). Now the 
Corinthians are mentioned several times as allies of the Spartans in 
the account of the first war (i. ¢., c. 11, 1, bis, and ¢. 11, 8), and it 
is easy to see that those passages are more closely connected with 
the narrative than the one under discussion (i. e., c. 15, 8). A place 
in the line of battle is assigned to them (c. 11, 1), and the difficulty 
of their return home after the defeat is commented on. Whereas, 
in c. 15, 8 their presence is simply mentioned, and nothing is said of 
their position in the line of battle, nor is any concern expressed about 
their returning home safely, although the Spartans were defeated 
at the battle of Capron Sema, just as they had been before Ithome, 
and the Corinthians were therefore in the same situation here as there. 
The Corinthians are also mentioned once as the allies of the 
Spartans in the Rhianus part (c. 19, 1); but evidently they form 
no vital part of Rhianus’ epic, as he describes a siege, and it does 
not appear anywhere that the Spartans found any difficulty in sus- 
taining it. Moreover, the Corinthians do not appear to form a 
necessary part of this exploit of Aristomenes, because Polyaenus in 
II, 31, tells the same story essentially without the Corinthians. 
Besides Pausanias (ec. 18, 5) was acquainted with two versions of 
this story (cf. Immerwahr, Lakonika, 171), and it is to be expected 
that Myron had also told this story. If so, we recognize the source 
for the general remark in c. 18,4: és Tov Keddav + éuBarXovor bé 
évtavba ovs av éml peyiotous Tywwmpaevrat, for in Thuce., I, 134, 4, we 
read: «al adrov éuérXynoav pev és Tov Karddav obrep Tovs KaKkov- 
pryous euBarrevv. Polyaenus does not mention the place at all. 
Of the Lepreates no mention is made in the account of the first 
war. It is stated there (c. 11, 1) that the Corinthians were the 
only ones of the Peloponnesians who came to the assistance of the 
Spartans. But it also appears that the assistance the Lepreates are 
said to render the Spartans in the second war is in conflict with 
ce. 24, 1; for there we are told that Aristomenes gave one of his 
daughters in marriage to a Lepreat (cf. O. Miller, Dorier, I, 151, 
4). Now we read in III, 8, 3-6, that the Lacedaemonians took 
the part of the Lepreates against the Eleans, of which the words 
(c. 15, 8), cat Aerpeatav ties cata éyOos TO ’Hreiwy are evi- 
dently a reminiscence. It therefore seems likely that Pausanias, 


The Messeniaca of Pausunias. 43 


on his own authority, thought it proper to introduce them here as 
allies of the Spartans. 

The enumeration of the allies who came to the battle of Capron 
Sema (c. 15, 7) includes also the descendants of the Messenian king 
Androcles. ‘These are mentioned again in c. 16, 2 and ¢. 17, 9). 
It is not clear on what source Pausanias relied in this instance, but 
it is possible that the notice of them was taken with other matter 
from Myron. At any rate they seem to have figured in Myron’s 
account to some extent (ef. ce. 4, 4; 5, 6; 14, 3). 

Very noticeable is the close correspondence between the passages 
ec. 14, 1 and ec. 15, 7—the former telling of the exile of the Messe- 
nians at the end of the first war, the latter of the return of the exiles, 
as follows (c. 14, 1): Meoonviwy 8& bcos pév érvyoy év LeKvdve 
ovoat Kal ev "Apyet mpokeviat kal mapa Tov ’ApKadav TLciVv, oUTOL 
bev &s TavTas Tas TOES aTrexw@pnaav, és "EXevoiva dé of Tod 
yévous TOV lepéwv Kal Oceais Tais weydrats TedodVTES TA dpyLa. 
0 5€ 6yNos 0 TOAUS KATA TAS TraTpiOas ExacTOL TAS apKaias éoKeE- 
dacOncav, and 15, 7: aAKovtwv audorépors Kal TOY cUppayor, 
. . » Meconviors pév odv ’Hretor kal Apxades, éte dé €& "Apyous 
adixeto Kal Yuxvavos BonOeva. maphoav dé Kal door mpoTepov 
tov Meconviav édevyov Exovciws, €& "EXevotvos Te ols TaTpLov 
dpav Ta dpyia TOV peyddov Ocdv, x. tT. r%. Not only is the 
correspondence between these two passages noteworthy, but this 
attempt to join the second war to the first seems hasty, for who 
would believe that the same men participated in two wars that 
were separated by an interval of thirty-nine years, especially as 
the first one had lasted twenty years! Concerning the flight of the 
priests to Eleusis, O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 144, 6, says: “ Die Flucht 
der Eingeweihten nach Eleusis ist ganz ungeschichtlich gedacht ; 
noch mehr dass sie im zweiten Kriege ruhig zusehen. Kéiimpften 
doch in Athen selbst Daduchen in Reih und Glied.” — This bit of 
improbability agrees with Myron’s style of romancing. 


d). Tyrtaeus. 


From whom did Pausanias take his information about Tyr- 
taeus? Duncker, VI, 106, says that the story about the lame 
school-master whom the Athenians sent to the Spartans in de- 


ad A Study in the Sources of 


rision, which is most completely developed in Pausanias, is of 
very late origin. Tyrtaeus is mentioned four times as an active 
participant in the second Messenian war (cf. cc. 15,6; 16,2; 16,6; 
18, 3): three times in that part which was made up by Pausanias, 
and once (c. 18, 3) in the part where Rhianus was his chief source. 
But even here I have no doubt that it was inserted, since, as in 
the previous passages, Tyrtaeus is barely mentioned, and only 
enough to bring in some bit of well-known tradition. It is my 
opinion that Tyrtaeus was included in Myron’s history just as 
Aristomenes was. 

That late tradition did actually place Tyrtaeus in the first war 
we learn from Suidas (s. v. Tyrtaeus): Tuptatos 671 Aaxedaspovios 
a@pocav 1) Meconvnv aipnoery 7) avtol TeOvnEecOat . ypnaavtos 5é 
Tod Geod ctpatnyov Tapa AOnvaiwy NaPetv, NaywBavover Tuptatov 
TOV ToLnTHV, YoAOV avopa * Os em’ apEeTHY AUTOVS TTapAaKady Eire 
TOK eter THY Meconvny, x.t.rX. The oath as well as the numeral 
show that the first war is meant. Now in Paus., ec. 15, 6, where 
we learn that the Lacedaemonians, in obedience to the oracle 
applied to the Athenians for a leader, we read the following: 
"A O@nvaior 6 ovdéTEpa OéXovTes, oVTE Naxedatpovious avev peyadov 
KwWodvvev TpocraBeiv polipav TaV év IleNoTOvYnTw THY apiaTHD, 
ovte k.T.X. I have shown above that Myron brought out very 
prominently the desire of the Spartans to get the Messenian land, 
with which zpocdaetv potpav above agrees. Besides, this would 
have been suitably said in the first war, before the Lacedaemonians 
had got possession of Messenia, but not after they had held it for 
thirty-nine years. 

Again, one of the measures that Tyrtaeus proposed in order to 
strengthen the Spartan cause was to take Helots into the army (cf. 
Paus., c. 16,6; Justin., III, 5); but we find these assisting already 
in the first war (c. 11, 1), and there a marked progress may be 
observed, for whereas, in c. 8, 3 we read only of ' Periveci assisting 
the Lacedaemonians, in c. 11, 1 we find Perioeci and Helots. 





It appears from the foregoing discussion concerning the chapters 
14-17 (which constitute the beginning of the account of the second 
war) that, as Myron’s history ostensibly dealt only with the first 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 45 


war, and Rhianus’ epic with the latter part of the second, Pausanias 
had to turn elsewhere for material. An outline he may have found 
in Ephorus and Sosibius ; but this was probably too bare to be in 
keeping with the preceding story of the first war, and the part of 
the second war which Rhianus treated. Now as Pausanias knew 
that Myron had included in his history not only the stories about 
Aristomenes, but also other matter, he decided to utilize this mate- 
rial. The various considerations that have been advanced, and the 
close relationship which appears to exist between the part under 
discussion and the account of the first war, make this hypothesis 
very probable. 

Let us pause for a moment to review the investigation into 
Pausanias’ indebtedness to Myron’s history, as far as it has been 
made. I began with the generally accepted view that Myron had 
written the history of the first war from the taking of Ampheia 
down to the death of Aristodemus. Starting from this point, it 
was shown that his history had begun with an introduction ; that 
it had not only related the events of the war to its close, but had 
told of the exile of the Messenians, and finally that Myron’s history 
had virtually extended into the territory of the second war, inas- 
much as tradition that pertained to the second war had been 
included. So far, then, the investigation has considered Myron’s 
history as simply dealing with the first war, although in a larger 
sense than is generally supposed. Now the attempt will be made 
to prove that Myron had not stopped here, but had continued with 
the recital of the later doings of the Messenians, and especially 
had shown how they had been finally restored to their country by 
Epaminondas. 


VI. CONSIDERATION OF PossIBLE SOURCES FOR THE ACCOUNT 
OF THE RESTORATION. 


a). It was not constructed by Pausanias from Fragments. 


It must be evident from the foregoing discussion that Myron 
and Rhianus were the principal sources that Pausanias used when 
writing the history of the first two Messenian wars. The question 
now arises, where did Pausanias get his material for the subsequent 


46 A Study in the Sources of 


history? We must accept one of three propositions: Firstly, Pau- 
sanias worked up the account of the restoration from fragments of 
tradition ; secondly, he adapted an account of the restoration which 
was complete in itself; thirdly, he had access to some history of 
the Messenian wars which included the story of the restoration. 

The objection to the first proposition is, that Pausanias would 
never have produced an harmonious narrative, such as we now 
find, from raw material handed down by tradition. This can be 
seen by examining the last two chapters of the historical part of 
the Messeniaca (i. e., ec. 28 and 29). These two chapters, which 
sketch the history of the Messenians subsequent to the restoration, 
i. e., from 370 B. C. to 183 B. C., bear unmistakable signs of 
having been composed by Pausanias himself. He refers to his 
Attica in c. 28, 3; to his Sicyonia in ec. 29, 1; and if we compare 
these chapters with I, 13,6; II, 9,2; VII, 7,4; VIII, 49, 4; 
50, 2; 50, 5, it will be easy to see that they were not originally 
written by Pausanias to be Messenian history ; in fact, the part 
from c. 29, 6 to c. 29, 13 is largely a condensation of that part of 
his Arcadian history in which Philopoemen figures. 

There is no doubt then that Pausanias himself is responsible for 
the composition of these two chapters. But how different they are 
from the part that precedes! As the reader turns to these chapters 
he finds the Messenians fade, as it were, into the distance. Twice 
they draw near again—once when an expedition is made by 
them against Elis (c. 28), and again when they are attacked by 
Demetrius (c. 29). But as these anecdotes, which are evidently 
taken from some Messenian source, are not brought into organic 
unity with the rest, it becomes evident that Pausanias could not 
have produced an harmonious account of the restoration if he had 
depended on fragments of tradition. Myron and Rhianus wove 
their fragments together by drawing on their imagination. Pausa- 
nias, in his capacity as compiler, turned to his sources, and hence 
could not be expected to attain the same unity of composition. 

Besides this it is very noticeable that the intense Messenian bias 
so prominent in the previous part of the history is lacking in the 
above named chapters. Pausanias himself evidently favored the 
Lacedaemonians as much as the Messenians, for he not only de- 
voted a book to Laconia, in which there is no evidence of a feeling 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 47 


against them, but he shows a special interest in Theopompus, the 
Spartan king who reigned at the time of the first Messenian war 
(cf. Immerwahr, Lakonika, 20, and Paus., III, 3,2), and speaks 
of the merits of Polydorus, the other king, in III, 3, 2-3. More- 
over, as already mentioned, he assumes an impartial attitude, which 
is in striking contrast with the one-sided Messenian version (ef. 
III, 3,2; IV, 4,3; 5,5). Tf, on the other hand, Pausanias had 
acquired a strong Messenian sympathy from his Messenian sources, 
we should expect him to continue in this frame of mind to the end 
of this history ; but such is not the case. If it were not for the 
expedition against Elis in ec. 28 and the attack of Demetrius in ec. 
29, in both of which chapters the Messenians are represented as 
endowed with their former valor, our feelings would be turned 
against them. This darker picture of the Messenian character is 
no doubt truer to history, and agrees with the estimate put upon it 
by Polybius (IV, 32). Accordingly, in c. 28, 2, we read that they 
became the allies of Philip, the son of Amyntas, for which reason 
they took no part in the battle of Chaeroneia. But such an alliance 
ought to have appeared especially reprehensible to Pausanias, who 
censures Philip severely in I, 25, 3, and in VIII, 7, 5, and soon 
after mentioning the alliance, says (c. 28, 4): vAimrov S€ Tov 
"Apuvtou Ta Te GAN OTFOGa Eipntar KaKoupyncavTos THY ‘EXAdéa, 
kat "HXeiwy tovs duvatovs dvapGeipavtos xpynuwace. It was just 
such a charge that the Messenians had brought against the Lace- 
daemonians in c. 5,3: Kpowcw te adtots d@pa atrooteiNavTe yeve- 
Ocat dirovs BapBdpw tpetous, xk... (see also p. 15). For the 
alliance with Philip Pausanias makes no excuse, unless we may 
consider as an excuse his explanation of the non-appearance of the 
Messenians at Chaeroneia, with the words (c. 28, 3): ov pay odd€ 
tots" EXAnow évavtia Véc8at Ta 6TTAa HOéAncav. Again, in the 
case of Philopoemen, for whom Pausanias must have felt an interest, 
to judge from the account of his life in VIII, to which he refers, 
there is the same failure to appreciate the discredit that the Messe- 
nians had brought upon themselves. He simply says (ec. 29, 12): 
Meconviar 8€ of Te PiXoTroLpeve aitioe THS TeXEUTHS Edocay Sixas, 
kai  Meconyn cuverérecev abOis és TO’ Ayaixov. The lack of 
sympathy for the Messenians that is apparent in these chapters, 
which were undoubtedly constructed by Pausanias, and the want 


48 A Study in the Sources of 


of unity of composition, show that the previous chapters must 
have been derived from some complete account. This opinion is 
strengthened by the evidence given above, which proves that some 
particular source of Pausanias must have ceased suddenly to flow 
when the story of the restoration had been told. 


b). The Story of the Restoration joined to an Account of the 
Previous History. 


According to the second proposition Pausanias would have used 
as a source some complete account of the restoration, but one inde- 
pendent of the earlier history. But surely if anyone had written 
of the restoration he would not have neglected to bring it into 
connection with the wars which had effected the banishment. In 
fact, it may be urged against both the foregoing propositions that 
it would be highly improbable for no one before Pausanias’ time 
to have brought the story of the restoration into connection with 
the early wars. At the period of the restoration, or, at least, at a 
time not so far remote as that of Pausanias, who lived in the 
second century A. D., would it be natural to look for an unusual 
interest to manifest itself in the fortunes of the Messenians, an 
interest such as produced the works of Myron, Rhianus and Aes- 
chylus of Alexandria. 

Now there is clear evidence that the restoration had been joined 
to the earlier history in the source which Pausanias used. For 
chapter 25, which is totally the work of the imagination, was un- 
doubtedly written for the purpose of bridging over the gap between 
the history of the wars and the account of the restoration, and we 
can also see a close relation existing between the beginning of the 
Messeniaca and the account of the restoration. For evidence in 
regard to c. 25, see c. VIII, 6. As to the latter proposition, the 
following comparison between the above-named parts of the Messe- 
niaca will show that it is true. 

Especial prominence is given in the Messeniaca to the rites per- 
formed in honor of the Great Goddesses. Pausanias (c. 33, 4) says 
he considers them, performed at Carnasium, only next in majesty 
to the Eleusinian mysteries. Soon after the occupation of Messenia 
by Polycaon the rites of the Great Goddesses, as we are told, were 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 49 


brought from Eleusis to Andania by Caucon and revealed there to 
Messene, the wife of Polycaon. Many years later these rites were 
raised to greater honor by Lycus, the son of Pandion. These 
matters are spoken of as important events, and are discussed in five 
consecutive paragraphs. ‘The presence of these religious ceremonies 
gave to Andania a special importance. Next to Andania the town 
Oichalia, known later by the name Carnasium, is spoken of as a 
place famous for its worship of the Great Goddesses. Besides 
Caucon, Lycus and Messene, the names of Eurytus, Apharaeus 
and his sons are mentioned in connection with these rites. It was 
to Aphareus, the son of Perieres, and his children, that Lycus 
revealed the rites at Andania. 

Now in the account of the restoration the same degree of import- 
ance is attached both to the rites of the Great Goddesses and to the 
places and heroes that are associated with them in the introduction. 
So it is stated in c. 26, 6, that when Epaminondas wanted to build 
a town for the Messenians, they positively refused to rebuild either 
Andania or Oichalia, as their calamities had come upon them while 
living there. The joining of the name Oichalia with Andania was 
evidently made on account of the fact that the celebration of the 
mysteries was also connected with this place ; for otherwise Arene, 
Pylus or Stenyclarus should have been mentioned instead, as they 
had been in the early times successively the seats of government 
after Andania. While Epaminondas was in doubt, in consequence 
of the above-mentioned refusal, where to build the city, a vision of 
the priest Caucon appeared to him, commanding him to restore to 
the Messenians their land. The same vision appeared also to 
Epiteles, who commanded the Argive contingent of forces, telling 
him to dig at a certain place on Mt. Ithome. He obeyed, and 
found a roll of tin finely wrought, on which were inscribed the 
rites of the Great Goddesses. In consequence of these events 
Epaminondas decided to found a city on Mt. Ithome, and the 
priests inscribed in books the rites that had been discovered. 

Then, before beginning work on the city, sacrifices were offered 
by all the parties engaged, but especially by the Messenians, who, 
together with their priests, offered sacrifices to Zeus Ithomatas, the 
Dioscuri, the Great Goddesses, Caucon, Messene, Kurytus, Aphareus 
and his sons, Cresphontes Aipytus and Aristomenes. Here it 


50 A Study in the Sources of 


should be noted that not only are the Great Goddesses and the 
names that are associated with their rites mentioned, but also that 
the other divinities and heroes to whom sacrifices are offered play 
an important role in the introduction, as well as in the account of 
the wars. A connection with the body of the history is also 
observable. ‘The priests of the Great Goddesses are mentioned in 
ec. 14, 1 and 15, 7, and their rites in c. 20 (see c. VI, ¢, end). For 
the frequent mention of Zeus Ithomatas see c. VII, a, ff., and of 
the Dioscuri c. WII, 6, ff. Aristomenes, of course, plays an im- 
portant role in the second war, and it may be remarked that in ec. 
17, 1 he owes his life to a priestess of Demeter. There can be no 
doubt then that Pausanias made use of some source in which the 
restoration was already in organic unity with the earlier as well as 
the later history. 

Further evidence can be seen in a passage that was pointed out 
by Kohlmann, op. cit., 21. We have already seen how Pausanias, 
after telling of the restoration of the Messenians to their country, 
proceeds in cc. 28 and 29 to give a sketch of the later history, 
down to the year 183 B.C. He then concludes the historical part 
of the Messeniaca with these words (c. 29, 13): "Ayps pev 52) Todde 
0 Noyos érANOE por Meconviwy Ta ToArXA TAaOHpaTA, Kal WS 6 
Saiov opas eri Te yas Ta Exyata Kal érl Ta Toppwtata TeXo- 
Tovyncov aKedacas VaoTEpoy xXpov@ Kal és THY oiKelav avécwcE ° 
TO O€ aro TOUTOU THS Yopas Kal TOAEwY TpaTwOpEcba és adynynow. 
This passage clearly indicates that some source that Pausanias used 
ended with the account of the restoration, for if Pausanias had 
been responsible for the construction of all the later history, he 
would not have overlooked what he had related in cc. 28 and 29. 

If the reasoning so far has been correct, it follows that either 
Rhianus or Myron furnished Pausanias with material for writing 
the account of the restoration. A third source might of course be 
thought of; but as it has been shown that the account of the resto- 
ration must have been attached to a history of the wars, such a 
third source would have been more important to Pausanias than 
either Myron or Rhianus. Yet Pausanias (c. 6), when discussing 
the relative trustworthiness of Myron and Rhianus, has nothing to 
say of a third source. Furthermore, it has been well substantiated 
that Myron and Rhianus were the chief sources for the history of 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 51 


the wars, and it is therefore more natural to look to them for an 
account of the restoration than to assume some unknown source. 
This view is supported by the fact that so many points in the 
account of the restoration are closely connected with those parts 
which have recognizedly been taken from Myron and Rhianus. 
One of the best examples of this is the story of the roll of tin on 
which the rites of the Great Goddesses had been inscribed, which 
Epiteles found on Mt. Ithome, and which had been deposited there 
by Aristomenes. ‘The circumstances concerning this deposit, told 
in c. 20, and again in c. 26, stand in such intimate relation that it 
is impossible that Pausanias could have obtained them from two 
distinct sources. But c. 20 belongs to that part of the account of 
the second war which presumably was taken from Rhianus. If 
then this circumstance owes its origin to Rhianus, it follows that 
he was also the author of the account of the restoration. But 
weighty reasons show that this cannot be true. 


ce). Rhianus. 


Kohlmann, op. cit., tried to prove by pointing out correspond- 
ences between the account of the restoration and the history of the 
second war, that Rhianus had not closed his epic with the death of 
Aristodemus, as was generally supposed (cf. O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 
152,3; Meineke, Analecta Alexandrina, 197), but had extended 
his poem so as to include the story of the restoration of the Messe- 
nians to their country by Epaminondas. Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 
136, 5, says that Conat, Les Messéniennes de Rhianus, Annales de 
la faculté de Lettres de Bordeaux, II (1880), 377.sqq.,' has at least 
severely shaken this hypothesis. Conat, Poésie Alex., 338, in giv- 
ing his reasons against Kohlmann’s hypothesis, closes with the 
objection that an account of the restoration would be a natural 
termination of a detailed account of the two wars: not of a poem 
devoted to the glorification of a single man like Aristomenes, and 
practically confined to the siege of Hira. 

The almost exclusive attention that is paid to Aristomenes in 
the account of the second war is very striking. Nearly all the 


1 Unfortunately I have been unable to see this article. 


52 A Study in the Sources of 


fighting consists in personal encounters between Aristomenes and 
the Spartans. The oracle predicting the fall of Eira is known only 
to Aristomenes and to the priest Theoclus, who keep the informa- 
tion to themselves (cf. cc. 20,3; 21,3). In the first war, on the 
contrary, all the Messenians are represented as taking part in the 
fighting and are familiar with the oracles. 

The national hatred between Messenians and Spartans was intense 
in the first war, as can be seen by examining the following passages : 
6G 4, 4:5) 7,/o 500 OLvowls ors Lh Oeell, 6-1 S05 iwiieh har 
monize in sentiment with ec. 5, 3-5; 8, 2; 17, 3-6. This last 
passage belonged to Myron, as was shown p. 37. On the other 
hand, we are informed in the account of the second war only of the 
feelings of Aristomenes and of the priest Theoclus (ef. 16, 5; 22, 
3; 21,11; 23, 2). The passage (c. 15, 1) where the hatred of the 
Argives and Arcadians is mentioned, has been shown above (p. 40) 
to be due to Pausanias. Still there is one passage (7. e., c. 23, 5) 
at the close of the story of the second war, where the hatred of the 
Messenian people is mentioned. It must be observed, however, 
that this is done in a relenting spirit, with which compare c. 21, 12, 
where the Spartans seem to relent. 

We seem to be reading there the final act concerning the fortunes 
of the Messenians as Rhianus had related them. At other times 
the Messenian exiles scattered themselves in different directions. 
So it was at the end of the first war, and after they were driven 
from Naupactus, 405 B. C.; but after the second war, we are told, 
there was one grand exodus (c. 23,3): Kal petéoyov dmaytes, 
TANY EL YHnpas TWa aTrEipyev 7) nde EvTropaY ETVYEV és THY aTrO- 
dnuiav. It was, then, in accordance with this final act that Man- 
ticlus is made to tell the Messenians to forget Messene and their 
hatred of the Lacedaemonians (c. 23, 5). 

Then we are treated to a fictitious account of how, on the invita- 
tion of Anaxilas, whom we know to have lived in the fifth century 
B. C. (ef. Bently, Dissertat. wpon Phal., 190 sqq.), they attack 
Zancle and with his help take possession of it; whereupon they 
show clemency to the conquered and make a treaty with them, and 
change the name of the town to Messene (c. 23, 9). This seems a 
fitting close to the history of the unfortunate Messenians, who 
have now found a final resting-place, which is marked by the last 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 53 


words of the chapter (c. 23,10): Meoonvious pév odv tots hev- 
yovow éyeyover Tépas THS aNys. 

Having thus closed his account of the Messenians, Rhianus re- 
turns to Aristomenes to tell of his last days—how the hero gives 
his daughters and a sister in marriage and goes to live with a 
third daughter who married Damagetus, a king on the island of 
Rhodus, where he ends his days. _Pausanias closes his account of 
him with the words (ce. 24,3): od yap édec cupdopav ovdeuiar 
Aaxedatpovios éts €& “Apiotopévous yevéoOar, which words, as 
Conat has pointed out, show that Rhianus had now come to the 
end of his story. It must be evident that, as Rhianus’ interest was 
centered in Aristomenes (cf. c. 6,3: “Puave d€ év Tois érecw ovdév 
"Apictopévns éotly apavéotepos 7) Axirrevs év Idsads ‘Ounpe), 
he should haye had no motive to tell of the later fortunes of the 
Messenian people after the death of his hero. As the account 
stands in Pausanias it looks very much like the close of a story. 


The above considerations show that Rhianus did not write of 
the restoration. How, then, could he have written (c. 20) about 
the deposit on Mt. Ithome of the roll containing the sacred rites, 
which is closely connected with the same? <A negative answer is 
supported by the following considerations: If Rhianus had told 
this story, it would have been strange that Ithome and not Eira 
should have been the spot chosen where to bury the roll, for Eira 
and not Ithome was the stronghold of the Messenians in the second 
war. Besides, as Kira was closely besieged, the future of Messenia 
would have been jeoparded by attempting to pass through the lines, 
a difficulty which is not adverted to. Again, the close intimacy 
existing between Theoclus and Aristomenes, who share the knowl- 
edge of the oracle which prophesied the coming destruction and 
who are elsewhere brought into close relation with each other, and 
the fact that Theoclus is priest, ought to have made him participate 
in that religious act of Aristomenes; but no one besides Aristo- 
menes knows anything about it. Moreover, the fact that the rites 
of the Great Goddesses are in question; that Lykus, the son of 
Pandion, is mentioned, and that Aristomenes prays to Zeus Itho- 
matas, indicates that this episode is connected with the mythologi- 

| 


54 A Study in the Sources of 


cal period of the Messenian history, and at the same time with the 
restoration, thus reaching far beyond the limits of Rhianus’ epic. 

On the other hand, we know that Myron had included the deeds 
of Aristomenes in his history, and that Ithome was the place where 
the Messenians resisted the attacks of the Spartans in the first war ; 
and it would, therefore, have been easy and natural, according to 
Myron’s account, for Aristomenes to bury the roll of tin there. But 
if the passage under discussion was included in Myron’s history, it 
furnishes a clear proof that Myron had also written of the restoration. 


VII. Myron’s History PROBABLY INCLUDED AN ACCOUNT 
OF THE RESTORATION. 


a). Various Reasons Assigned to Prove Myron’s Authorship. 


The reason that Myron has not been proposed as a source for 
the account of the restoration seems to be the words of Pausanias 
in c. 6, which apparently limit Myron’s history to the first war: 
cuvexas pev 67 TA TavTa €E apyns és TOU ToNEMoU THY TENEVTIV 
ovdeTépw Sinvuctat, mépos S€ @ EKATEPOS NPETKETO, O eV THS TE 
"Apdelas THY Gdaow Kal Ta éepeEns cuvéOnKev, ob TpoTw THs 
"A piotodypou TeXeuTHS, ‘Puavos d€ TobdE ev TOD TpwTOV TOY ToNé- 
pov ovee IrbaTo apynv, oTdaa S& xpove cuVvéBn Tots Meconviots 
atoctacw ato Aakedatpoviov, o 6€ Kal TadTa pev.ov Ta TavTa 
éypawre, THS mayns 5€ TA baoTepa Hv ewaxécavTo éml TH Tadpo TH 
Karovupevn weyadn. But we must take into account that Pausa- 
nias had to decide whether to follow Myron’s history, which 
embraced in its story of one great war nearly all the early tradi- 
tion, including the tales about Aristomenes, or to tell of two wars 
and relegate Aristomenes and some other matter that Myron’s 
history contained to the account of the second war. The words 
gvvexas—bunvucrat quoted above show us that Pausanias had in 
mind only what pertained to these first two wars. This exclusive 
reference to those wars, therefore, does not signify a denial on the 
part of Pausanias that Myron had also written of other portions of 
Messenian history. We have seen above that these words are not 
to be taken literally, as Myron had written likewise of the causes 
that led up to the wars and had told of the capture of Ithome. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 55 


This granted, the likelihood of Myron having written also of the 
restoration of the Messenians becomes at once very strong, for his 
history was that of the people, and the strong sympathy which he 
displays for the Messenians would naturally prompt him to tell 
how they were finally restored to their rights, and how their 
bitter enemies, the Spartans, received the punishment which was 
due them. 

The exclusive mention of the Messenians in the account of the 
restoration seems to reflect the devotion of Myron to the cause of 
these people. Thus we learn from various sources that Epami- 
nondas did not colonize the new city Messene with Messenians 
alone, but also with others (cf. Diod., XV, 66, and Isocrates, 
Archid., 28); yet in Pausanias we read only of the restoration of 
the Messenians, and the vision that appears to Epaminondas, ec. 
26, 6, says: od 6€ Meconvios yhv Te Tatpioa Kal TONELS aTrOOOS. 
Likewise in the short sketch of the third war only Messenians are 
said to take part, which is contrary to Thucydides and Ephorus, 
who speak of Helots and others (see c. VIII, a; ef. Busolt, I, 
p. 439, n). 

The poetical elements in ce. 26 and 27, which consist chiefly of 
dreams and apparitions, were cited by Kohlmann to show their 
relationship to the poem of Rhianus ; but, although Pausanias tells 
us (c. 6) that Myron wrote his history in prose, there is no doubt 
as to the poetical character of his narrative, which was probably 
due, to a large extent, to the sources which he used. LL. Spengel 
(Abhandlungen d. Miinchener Akad. Classe, 1, Bd. X) said: “Man 
méchte auch den Myron gleich Rhianus fiir een Dichter halten, 
dieselbe beabsichtigte Concinnitit, bis ins Tragische gestaltet ;” 
and when Kohlmann (op. cit., 24) puts this aside with the words: 
Quod ita recte sese non habere manifestum est, he did so probably 
with the thought that, what Spengel considered poetical touches, 
were but rhetorical embellishments. Yet rhetorical style alone 
could not account for the character of Myron’s narrative, and 
Manso, Sparta, I, p. 268, sqq., is possibly right in attributing the 
poetical elements in the Messeniaca to epic lays, although it seems 
far more probable that Myron and Rhianus should have used them 
as sources than that Pausanias should have constructed his history 
with their help. 


56 A Study in the Sources of 


Myron often lets the Messenians and Lacedaemonians fight in 
heroic style outside of the line of battle (cf. ec. 8,4; 10,2). The 
passage where Theopompus rushes forward to kill Euphaes, and 
Euphaes likens his adversary to Polynices (c. 8,8), is regarded 
by Kohlmann as rhetorical, yet it may be due to a poetical source, 
as Manso thought (Sparta, I, p. 268). Conat (Poesie Alex., p. 352) 
compares the story (c. 18,4) in the Rhianus part, where Aristo- 
menes is struck senseless by a stone and so falls into the hands of 
the Spartans, with Iliad, XIV, 409, ff., where Ajax strikes Hector 
with a stone, and as the Achaeans rush forward to get possession 
of the body of the fallen hero, is defended by the Trojans, who 
rescue him from the fight. A parallel, which is perhaps better, 
may be found ine. 10, 3, where Euphaes falls senseless in the thick 
of the fight, although not struck by a stone; but here, just as in 
the case of Hector, his friends rush to his rescue and succeed in 
bearing him off. There can be no doubt, then, of the poetical 
character of Myron’s history. 

We need, however, not be satisfied with a general correspondence 
in poetic style, but can find a closer relationship between the dreams 
related in the account of the restoration and Myron’s history. Thus 
the vision of Comon’s mother (c. 26) was a sign of the coming 
restoration, and so resembles the vision that Aristomenes had in 
the first war (ce. 13, 2), which was a sign of the coming destruction. 
This correspondence is strengthened by the peculiar hideousness of 
these two dreams. On the other hand, the visions that are said to 
have occurred in the second war pertain neither to the destruction 
to be visited upon Messenia nor to the restoration. Besides, it was 
shown above that chapters 14-17 were derived, to a large extent, 
from Myron; so, possibly, the vision of the Dioscuri at the battle 
of Stenyclarus was taken from his history. The vision of Caucon, 
which appears to Epaminondas and Epiteles, is clearly connected 
with the earliest mythological period, as well as with the period 
of the wars, and, as shown (ce. VI, 6), probably belongs to Myron’s 
history. In ec. 26, 3 we are told that the priest in Messene, the 
colony in Sicily, had a dream in which it appeared that the god 
Heracles Manticlus was invited by Zeus to partake of a feast on 
Mt. Ithome. The fact that in Myron the Messenians retreat to 
Mt. Ithome and defend themselves there makes it likely that refer- 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 57 


ences to Ithome and Zeus Ithomatas were due to him. The fre- 
quent references to Zeus Ithomatas in the Messeniaca strengthen 
this view, for they make it probable that the mention of him was 
not merely due to fragments of tradition, but also to the design of 
the author of the first Messenian war, in which Ithome plays such 
a prominent role. Inc. 3,9 we are told that Glaucus instituted 
the worship of Zeus on the top of Mt. Ithome; in e. 12, 7 (cf. also 
c. 12, 8-10) the oracle says the divinity gives the Messenian land 
to those who first shall place a hundred tripods around the altar of 
Zeus Ithomatas; in ec. 13, 1 Aristodemus sacrifices to him; in c. 
19, 3 Aristomenes offers him the sacrifice of the Hecatomphonia ; 
and in 20, 4 he prays to Zeus, who protects Ithome, to guard the 
deposit he had made there. These two latter passages are found in 
the Rhianus part; but c. 20, 4 has been shown (p. 53, sqq.) to 
have belonged to Myron’s history, and c. 19, 3 deals with Aristo- 
menes, thus making it possible that Myron was a source. More- 
over, the mention of Zeus Ithomatas that is made in ¢ 19, 3 is 
omitted by Polyaenus, II, 31, 1, who speaks of the same sacrifice 
as being offered by Aristomenes ; and, although Clem. Alex. (see 
p- 19) mentions Zeus Ithomatas in this connection, there is still 
some likelihood that Myron is responsible for the mention of Zeus 
in the passage under discussion. 

Finally, in c. 27, 6 Zeus Ithomatas heads the list of divinities to 
whom the Messenians offer sacrifices, which fact, together with the 
circumstances concerning this divinity mentioned above, show that 
he played an important role in the history of the Messenians along 
with the Dioscuri and the Great Goddesses. 


b). The Part Played by Destiny Points to Myron. 


Further proof of the thesis that Myron had included an account 
of the restoration in his history will be found in looking into the 
fundamental plan of the Messeniaca, according to which the affairs 
of the Messenians, as well as of the Spartans, were controlled by 
destiny. 

Not only does the history itself reveal this plan, but the words 
in cc. 29, 13 and 6, 1 clearly refer to the same. Myron’s history 
of the first war corresponds with this conception, and Busolt, Gr. 


58 A Study in the Sources of 


Gesch., I, 135, 6, says: “ Die Messenier unterliegen nicht durch 
die Waffengewalt der Spartaner, sondern durch géttlichen Ratsch- 
luss und List.” 


ce). Rhianus and Myron. 


But so did, in a measure, Rhianus’ epic, and Conat thought that 
destiny was even more fully represented in this poem than in 
Myron’s history. The matter is complicated, both by the fact that 
the work of destiny was recognized in the sources which were 
accessible to Rhianus and Myron, and by the fact that, in writing 
the history of the second war, Pausanias used some of the material 
that Myron’s history contained. But, although both accounts 
represent the Messenian defeat as decreed by fate, it is Myron’s 
history which reaches back to an earlier time, when the Messenians 
brought upon themselves the wrath of the gods, and then again 
clearly looks forward into the future to a time of retribution. 

It is true the following three passages, cc. 17, 6, 20, 4, 21, 10, in 
the account of the second war refer to a retribution, but the first 
two have been shown to have been derived from Myron (p. 36, ff., 
and p. 58, ff.), and therefore the third passage, c. 21, 10, which 
records the last words of Theoclus, becomes insignificant when 
compared with the references that are made to a retribution in 
Myron’s history. This is true even though we leave out of account 
the above named passages (ec. 17, 6 and 20, 4), and compare ec. 12, 
7 with ce. 21,10. That the thought of retribution should occur in 
Rhianus’ poem is but another example of the fact that both 
Rhianus and Myron had access to the same or similar tradition. 
Now it is a significant fact that in the account of the restoration 
no notice is taken of the words of Theoclus (ce. 21, 10), whose utter- 
ance stood nearer in point of time; but, instead, the words of the 
oracle cited in the account of the first war are quoted (cf. ec. VII, 
b, end). ‘There are some other passages (cc. 18,7; 20,1; 21,7; 
etc.) in the account of the second war in which reference is made 
to supernatural power, but they either have nothing to do with 
destiny or have reference only to the second war. 

The following considerations show that the idea of destiny was 
worked out in Myron’s history more fully than in Rhianus’ epic: 
Whereas a succession of oracles and omens in the first war settle 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 59 


the fate of the Messenians ; the fall of Eira, on the other hand, 
was really brought about by natural causes: the betrayal of the 
Messenian woman, the inclement weather, and the wounding of 
Aristomenes. Destiny reveals itself through oracles and omens 
(cf. Moulton, The Ancient Classical Drama, 93, sqq.) ; but, whereas 
we find one oracle of two lines in the account of the second war, 
there are quoted in the account of the first war four oracles, con- 
sisting respectively of five, three, seven and six lines; and what 
gives this fact more importance is that the course of events in the 
first war is guided, to a large extent, by these oracles. Again, 
there are almost no omens worth mentioning in the account of the 
second war in comparison with those that are enumerated in ec. 13. 
In the poem of Rhianus there seems neither to have been a 
reference to the guilt of the Messenians, so as to explain why they 
were punished, nor were the wrong doings of the Spartans set 
forth, so as to justify the retribution. (Note that c. 17 belonged 
to Myron’s account, and that c. 14 is a paraphrase of a ‘Tyrtaean 
verse.) Accordingly the idea of retribution is only touched upon 
in Rhianus (e. 21, 10), whereas in Myron it stands in close connec- 
tion both with the earlier Messenian history and the restoration. 


If we turn our attention more particularly to Myron’s history 
we shall find that destiny played an important role there. But let 
us first examine some reasons that show us that Myron’s introduc- 
tion must have included a sketch of the earliest history of Messenia. 

This account of the earliest history shows us that the Messenians 
had a right to their land, and that this was recognized by the 
Spartans. It also shows that the population of Messenia contained 
a Spartan element, which makes intelligible the charge that the 
Spartans were making war on their own kinsmen, and so were 
guilty of sacrilege against Heracles, their common ancestor, These 
early chapters also explain the friendship which bound the Messen- 
ians to the Argives and Arcadians, for Polycarn had married 
Messene from Argos, and Cresphontes had married Merope, the 
daughter of the Arcadian Cypselus. 

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that there is no break in the line 
of succession of Messenian kings from Cresphontes, the first Dorian 


60 A Study in the Sources of 


king in Messenia, down to Euphaes, which is an indication that 
this early part is of one piece with the introduction, especially as 
the narrative appears to be closely knit together. 

The story of Aipytus, the son of Cresphontes, is told in c. 3, 8; 
then follow in quick succession characterizations of the descendants 
who are his successors, viz., Glaucus, Isthmius, Dotadas, Sybotas 
and Phintas. Then we are told that in the reign of Phintas the 
first difference arose between the Messenians and Spartans. It was 
the occasion on which the Spartan king Teleclus met his death. 
The successors of Phintas were his two sons, Antiochus and An- 
drocles. During their reign the Polychares episode took place, 
which was the immediate cause of the war. Euphaes, finally, the 
son of Antiochus, was the king during whose reign the war broke 
out. Evidently there is a close connection between the recital of 
the early mythology and the story of the causes that led up to the 
Messenian wars. Seeing, then, that Myron wrote the story of the 
first war and included an account of the causes that led to it, and 
that there is a close connection between the earliest history and 
the later parts, it is probable that Myron’s history included a 
sketch of the earliest Messenian history. 





Now to recur to the question of the role that destiny played 
in Myron’s history: there is no doubt that Myron recognized 
that the Messenians had incurred the wrath of the gods, for 
in ec, 12,1 this oracle is quoted: aX’ amatn pev exer yatav 
Meconvida aos, tais & avtais Téxvaicw adw@oeTaL aiomep 
umnpéev, which clearly points to the fraudulent manner in which 
Cresphontes had obtained Messenia, and indicates that the Messe- 
nians are going to suffer for it. It is also more than probable that 
the story which relates how Cresphontes had Messenia allotted to 
himself, which is related in c. 3, 4-5, must have been told by 
Myron, because otherwise neither the above reference to it nor the 
allusion in the enumeration of the charges made by the Messenians 
against the Spartans (ce. 5, 1) would be intelligible. Myron’s his- 
tory, then, not only took cognizance of Cresphontes’ fraud in the 
oracle quoted (c. 12, 1), but made this episode a distinct feature of 
his history, by which the origin of the guilt that rested on the 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 61 


Messenian people was explained. That some guilt rested on the 
Messenians is referred to by Manilius, Astron., III, 14: Non 
annosa canam Messenae bella NOCENTIS. 

The fraud of Cresphontes was sufficient cause, according to the 
oracle (c. 12, 1), to turn the force of destiny against the Messe- 
nians; but the wrath of the Dioscuri, in a certain sense the national 
divinities of the Lacedaemonians, whom, however, the Messenians 
also claimed as their own (Paus., III, 26, 3, and ec. 31, 9), must be 
accounted for. 

The role that the Dioscuri play and their connection with parts 
which have been shown above to have probably belonged to 
Myron’s history, makes it likely that Myron’s history had dealt 
with them also. 

Their wrath is spoken of in ec. 26, 6, where Caucon appears to 
Epaminondas in a dream and says: od 6€ Meoonviow yi te 
TaTploa Kal TONES amOdOs, érELd?) Kal TO pHa On Thict 
méTravtat TO Avooxovpwv. Pausanias tells, in c. 27, what he 
thought had been the reason of the displeasure of the Dioscuri— 
an event which happened before the battle of Stenyclarus. It was 
the exploit of two youths from Andania, Panormus and Gonippus, 
who, dressing so as to represent the two Dioscuri, come upon the 
Lacedaemonians while celebrating a feast, and, being weleomed by 
the people as the twin gods, succeed in killing a large number of 
them. Kohlmann thought Pausanias had taken this story from 
an earlier part of Rhianus’ poem. But Rhianus described the 
siege of Eira, and this happened before that; and it was shown 
above that, although certain features in ec. 14-17 were taken from 
Rhianus, the bulk of the material was drawn from Myron. Be- 
sides, this exploit is told of two young Messenians called Panormus 
and Gonippus, and not of Aristomenes, as we should expect of 
Rhianus, which fact becomes all the more significant when we see 
that Polyaenus, II, 31, 31, who tells the same story, lets Aristo- 
menes and a companion perform the deed. Again, Pausanias’ 
conjecture, which lets the deed occur in the second war, does not 
explain the importance of the wrath of the Dioscuri which the 
words of Caucon indicate. According to Pausanias their wrath is 
only an incident of the second war, whereas Caucon’s words to 
Epaminondas, “Give back to the Messenians their land, as the 


62 A Study m the Sources of 


wrath of the Dioscuri has ceased,” seem to imply that the misfor- 
tunes of the Messenians were largely due to the anger of these 
divinities. 

The fact that they are not spoken of in the first war, but in the 
second, is because they are mentioned in connection with tales 
about Aristomenes which we know were eliminated from the 
account of the first war by Pausanias. In c. 16, 9 Aristomenes is 
turned aside from a night attack on Sparta by a vision of Helen 
and the Dioscuri, and in c. 16, 5 the twin gods are represented as 
sitting on a fig tree during the battle of Stenyclarus, and when 
Aristomenes tries to pass this against the warning of the priest 
Theoclus, he loses his shield, and so the Lacedaemonians are able 
to escape. It has been shown that Myron was the main source for 
this part, and, as Myron had included Aristomenes in his account, 
these stories were probably taken from him. The name of the 
priest would, of course, have to be changed to Theoclus. More- 
over, it must be observed that Aristomenes goes to Boeotia in 
order to get his shield back. This would have caused a long 
absence on his part; but, as everything seemed to depend on him 
in the second war, such an absence, before the Messenians had 
sought refuge in Eira, would have been fraught with danger to 
the Messenians, whereas in the first war there were other heroes 
besides Aristomenes to lead their forces to victory. 

But, even if we suppose these events to have taken place during 
the first war, there is still lacking an explanation of the original 
cause of the wrath of the Dioscuri. That such a cause must have 
been at the root of the Messenian troubles was indicated, as already 
said, by the words of Caucon, and is further substantiated by the 
statement in ec. 26, 6, that the Messenians refused to rebuild either 
Andania or Oichalia, because, as they said, their troubles had come 
to them while living there. These events must have occurred long 
before the time of Cresphontes, who made Stenyclarus his residence _ 
after the return of the Heraclidae. But before the Trojan war the 
kings had inhabited successively Andania, Arene and Pylus, and, 
as the successive changes of the residence of the kings are carefully 
noted, so Andania, which was the place where the kings resided 
from the earliest period down to the time of Aphareus, the father 
of Idas and Lynceus, was synonymous with the earliest period of 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 63 


Messenian history. There seems to be good reason, then, to con- 
sider the combat of Idas and Lynceus (ec. 3, 1) with the Dioscuri 
as the calamity referred to in c. 26,6. It is true Arene was the 
residence of the king at this time, but the reference is approximate. 
This contest, in which the sons of Aphareus were killed, seems to 
be typical of the overthrow of the Messenian power by the Spar- 
tans (cf. Preller, Gr. Myth., I, 95), and was well adapted to head 
the story of the calamities that came upon the Messenians. 


Bearing in mind this affront to the Dioscuri, and the subsequent 
fraud of Cresphontes, we can understand the decree of fate that the 
Messenians were to be driven from their land. We see in the 
account of the first war how vain was the gallant defence of the 
Messenians and how fruitless the heroic efforts of Aristodemus, 
who, in trying to obey the oracle, even sacrificed his own daughter. 
Seemingly a contest with a rival nation, it was really a battle with 
destiny. We are made to feel the gloom of an adverse destiny, 
which had settled on the Messenians in the first war, in touches 
like the following : 

Euphaes said, when he saw Theopompus, the Spartan leader, 
advancing, that the case of the latter was like that of his ancestor 
Polynices ; for Polynices had brought an army from Argos against 
his country, and had killed his brother with his own hand and had 
been killed in turn, and now Theopompus desired to bring upon 
the race of Heracles the same guilt as rested on the descendants of 
Laius and Oedipus. Again, when Aristodemus had rather mur- 
dered than sacrificed his daughter, the priests refused to look upon 
the death of the latter as the sacrifice which the oracle demanded, 
and subsequently opposed, though in vain, the election of Aris- 
todemus as king, since he was polluted by the murder of his 
daughter. One adverse oracle after the other disheartened the 
people, and when a series of evil omens finally threw Aristodemus 
into despair, he slew himself on the grave of his daughter. He 
had thought that he was to be the saviour of the Messenians, but 
tvxn had rendered all his plans and deeds fruitless (c. 13, 4).’ 


!'The idea that the Lacedaemonians conquered by réx7, and not through their 
own prowess, is mentioned again in c¢. 25, 5. 


64 A Study in the Sources of 


In this manner the Lacedaemonians triumphed over the Messe- 
nians. But, at the same time that the oracle at Delphi was sending 
answers that showed that destiny was in favor of the Spartans, it 
intimated a future overthrow of the Lacedaemonian power. It is 
interesting to observe that the specific charge that is brought against 
the Messenians is deceit (c. 12, 1). 


’ tal / 
aXN amatn pev exer yaiav Meconvida daos, 
a ’ lal ae a 
tais 8 avtais Téyvatow aroocetat aiorep vrnpEev. 


But in this very oracle in which reference is made to Messenian 
deceit (i. e., Cresphontes’ fraud) as the ground of their downfall, it 
points to the deceit of the Spartans, by which they are going to 
conquer. This is referred to again in c. 12,4, where the Messe- 
nians are warned against Spartan wiles. But, by the employment 
of the means of deceit, the Spartans seem to bring guilt upon them- 
selves. At least, the oracle is reminded of such acts of the Spartans 
as the night attack upon Ampheia, before war had been proclaimed, 
or their bribing of Aristocrates to betray the Messenians. So we 
are informed, in ¢. 12,7, by an oracle which, though it is seemingly 
intended for the Messenians, is really addressed to the Spartans, 


\ 4 ” b] e/ 2 / / ff / 
Leds yap évevo’ ows * atratn 6é ce TpoaUe TiPnowr, 
e 9) , / > / \ > \ b lal 
7 Somiaw Ticts éoti, Kal ov Oeov éEatraTans. 
5 \ 
épd Ommn TO xpewov * dTn OarXOLoL TPO GAov. 


“ Deceit now places the Spartans ahead ; but their punishment 
will follow.” It is to this oracle that reference is made in the 
account of the restoration, c. 26,4: "Eyévero Te ov peta modu év 

/ ZL \ > / ’ / > an 
Aevxtpois Aaxedatpovioy To aTuynua opetopevov ex TadaLod * 
? / \ a / y See a A 
Apiatodjnpw yap T@ Bacihevoavtt Meconviwy emi TeXevT? Tov 
d00évtos éoTiv. 

&pd damn TO xpewv * dtn OaANOLoL TPO adroDv. 

Myron’s history makes the future punishment of the Spartans 
appear deserved ; for, not to speak of the many acts of injustice 
against other nations which are charged against the Lacedaemonians 
in c. 5, they are represented in this instance as waging an unjust 
war, and that against their own kinsmen, and, though the Mes- 
senians had been willing to leave their dispute to arbitration, the 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 65 


Spartans rejected all overtures to peace, and without even giving 
warning, fell upon Ampheia and captured it in a night attack. 
They are charged by the Messenians with having provoked the 
war, and that through greed, as they desired the Messenian land. 
Euphaes consoles the Messenians with the words (c. 6,6): Kat To 
evpevéoTtepov écecbar Tapa TOV Dedv auivover TH oiKELa Kal OK 
adixias dpyovot. The last words bring to mind Medea’s words 
(Eurip. Medea, 165): of vy éué rpdcbev TorApdc’ adixetv, which 
recognize the wrong of those who are first in doing injury. 

It must be evident that Myron’s history would have been in- 
complete without an account of the manner in which, in later 
years, retribution had been meted out to the Spartans, and of the 
way in which the Messenians had been restored to their country. 

I have nearly come to the close of my argument. There remains 
only to be added an investigation of the sketch of the third Messe- 
nian war, of chapter 25, and of a few points in chapter 26. 


Walt 
a). The Third Messenian War. 


It is generally supposed that Pausanias got his account of the 
third Messenian war from Thucydides. Unger, Philol., 41, 119, 
says: ‘‘ Pausanias, welcher die zwei ersten messenischen Kriege 
so ausfithrlich erzihlt, weiss von dem letzten auffallend wenig zu 
berichten : was er angibt, . . . ist zum gréssten Theil, oft wortlich, 
aus Thuc., I, 101, 102 und 128 entlehnt. Weder die Dauer des 
Kriegs und das Datum seiner Beendigung noch den Verlauf des- 
selben weiss er anzugeben.” Likewise, Busolt says, Gr. Gesch., II, 
439,1: “Der Bericht bei Paus., 1V, 24, 5, und I, 29, 8 geht, 
abgesehen von der Zeitangabe, der Hauptsache nach auf Thuc., I, 
128 und I, 101 zuriick.” 

We find in Pausanias three paragraphs devoted to the third war, 
which is, as Unger remarks, exceedingly little when we contrast 
therewith the detailed accounts about the first and second war. We 
might seek in this a confirmation of the view expressed above (p. 
30), that it was Pausanias’ aim to avoid telling over again what 
had been already told by some well known writer. But this ex- 
planation is not satisfactory, if we believe, with the above named 


66 A Study in the Sources of 


authorities, that Pausanias constructed his account from different 
sources. His date he got from some Althis, according to Unger, 
and possibly his confounding the date of the outbreak of the Helot 
revolt with that of Cimon’s expedition is to be traced to the same 
source, according to Busolt, Gr. Gesch., II, 454, n. And of the 
remainder of these three paragraphs it is only affirmed that most 
of it, not all, was taken from Thucydides, and even here Thuc., I, 
128 had to be combined with Thuc., I, 101, sqq. We should have 
to admit, then, that Pausanias was not bent on condensing, but on 
constructing independently an account of the third war, which view 
does not harmonize with the meagre account that confronts us, 
many things having been omitted that might very well have been 
taken from Thucydides. 

Busolt connects Paus., c. 24, 5 with I, 29, 8, and thinks that 
both passages have been taken from Thucydides ; but on compari- 
son we see a marked difference. In I, 29, 8 Helots alone are 
mentioned as revolting, whereas in c. 24, 6 it is that part of the 
Helots which had been Messenians (cf. ec. 24,6; III, 11,8). That 
the sources for books I and IV should have been different is quite 
natural, as book I was written much earlier, and had even been 
published separately (ef. Gurlitt, op. cit., 3). Now Paus., c. 24, 5 
cannot be from Thucydides, for Pausanias, as we have seen, says that 
only the Messenian portion of the Helots revolted ; but Thucydides, 
Gr. Gesch., I, 101, says: of EiXwrtes adtois cal TOV TepLoikav Oov- 
peatae Te Kal AlOaths és “lO@pnv atéctncav. mrEiotor S€ TOV 
EiA@tav éyévovto of THY TaXatav Meconviwy ToTe SovAwOEVTO@V 
amroyovot + 7 Kat Meconvior éxrAnOnoav oi wavtes. Thucydides is 
quite explicit about the matter, and, as Pausanias is equally explicit 
in IIT, 11, 8, I cannot think that he owes this part to Thucydides. 

A detailed comparison of the two accounts will show that Pau- 
sanias did not necessarily derive his account from Thucydides. 


Paus.,c. 24,5: Aaxedarpoviov Thuc., I, 128: of yap Aaxe- 
a / 
avopes atroBavety eri éyeAnpate | Satpoviot avactTncavTés TOTE €K 
OT@ 61 KaTayvacbérvtes iKéTat | TOD lepod Tov Ilocesdavos ato 
ia > / b] / Qn e , e / 
Katadevyouvow és Taivapov:év- | Tawapov tav Kitotwv ixétas 
n \ e > \ a > / b) / / 
TevOev dé 4) apxn ToV épdpav | amayayovTes béPOerpav. 
\ an lol a 
amo TOU Bwpod chads arooTa- 
Taca ATEKTELVE. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 67 


Thucydides says the suppliants were Helots; Pausanias says 
Lacedaemonians ; on the other hand, Thucydides says Lacedae- 
monians punished them; Pausanias says the Ephors did so. We 
have seen above that Myron had granted unusual powers to the 
Ephors in the first war (p. 13). They are mentioned in ce. 4, 8, 
5,4 and 12,2. Inc. 5,4 the phrase tov te épopwr tHv apyny 
occurs just as in c. 24,5. It is also worth noticing that Pausanias’ 
version is particularized, which is also the case in the following: 

Paus.: Xzraptiaraus dé év ov- Thuc.: 82 6 8) Kat odiow 
avTols vouifovat TOV péyay oeL- 


\ 4 (4) b SS / 
apmov yeverVar €v {TapTy. 


\ / / \ (ye 
devi Oyo Gepévors Tovs iKéTas 
arnvTncev é€x Ilocedavos pr- 
vipa. 


Not only does Pausanias put in stronger relief the connection 
between the execution of the suppliants and the earthquake, but 
also between this and the revolt. He begins by saying: dméorn- 
cay S€ Kaipov Tovovde evpovres, and ends with él 6 7H cupdopa 
ravTy (cf. Thue., I, 101, 2). More serious is the following differ- 
ence: Thucydides says nothing of the effect of the earthquake, 
whereas Pausanias says: Kai, odiow és Edados THY TOkW Tacav 
KatéXaPev 6 Geos. This, however, has been very fully treated by 
Ephorus (ef. Diod., XI, 63 ; Plut., Cimon, XVI, 6). But Ephorus 
could not have been used as a source here, for it seems highly im- 
probable that Pausanias should have condensed a long description 
of the earthquake into a bald statement of the effect in order to in- 
sert that in matter that he had derived from another source. Be- 
sides, Ephorus spoke of Messenians and Helots as revolting (ef. 
Diod., XI, 63, 84,7; Plut., Cimon, XVI, 6; XVII, 4), which 
argues, as we have seen, against the employment of his account as 
a source. 


Pausanias continues: Aaxe- Thue., 1, 102: Aaxedarpovior 


Saipovion O€ aAXG TE peETETE- 
MTOVTO TUMpAXLKA eT’ AUTOVS 
Kat Kipowva tov Mudrtiddov 
mpoéevov cdicw 6vtTa Kal’ A@n- 
vaiov Svvapw. 


dé, @s avTOIs TMpos Tovs év 106- 
> / c / BY 

LN ELNKUVETO O TONKEMOS, ANXOUS 

Te €mTeKanécavTo Evpyuayous Kal 

"AOnvaious + of & 7AOov Kipo- 

vos aTpaTnyouvTos TANOEL ovK 

oNLyO. 


68 A Study in the Sources of 


The phrase @\Xa Te—xat is so common in Pausanias that a verbal 
correspondence need by no means to be thought of (cf. ec. 1,2; 1,7; 
TO 2.3.5) 250 pea. Lets iOs oOo 4. 6s Ta moro Oe 
56 3.6, 4:/ G26 Suma Mtoe eu cr O61 Oss et hme lds 
6; 11,4; 11,8; 12,9; 12,10; ete.). Moreover, allowance must 
be made for the possibility that Thucydides was the ultimate source 


for Pausanias’ statements, which could come to him through Myron, 


who, as we have seen, drew from Thucydides (see also p. 12). 


Paus.: adtxopévous d€ Tovs 
Ld / ig lal lal 
A@nvaiovs vromtedaat SoKod- 
Tl OS TAXA VEWTEPLTOVTAS, Kab 
¢ AN fol id / b] / 
UTO THS vUToYias atroTEeypa- 
aOat pet ov Trorv €& “T@apns. 


Thue., I, 102: of yap Aaxe- 
/ > \ X / / 
Sarpoveot, émrevd?) TO Y@piov Bia 
ovy nAloKETO, SeicavTEs TOV 
> / \ \ Mi N 
A@nvaieov TO TONuNpoV Kal THY 
vewTepoTrotiav, Kal aNNOPUAOVS 
ALA NYNTAMEVOL, [1 TL, NV TAapa- 
pelvoow, vro tav év “loun 
/ 
mero OévTEs VEWTEPLTWOL, [LOVOUS 
/ 
Evpuayov arrévreprrar, 
Ge Tis) Phe 


TOV 


Here the word vewtepicovtas seems to come from vewTepotrotiay 
and vewTepicwor. But this could very well have been preserved 
in the source which Pausanias used, just as we find it in Plut., 
Cimon, 17,4: ameméuavto povous TOV cuppdy@V ws VvEewTEpt- 
otras, which is still closer to the form of expression used by 


Thucydides. 


Paus.: “A@nvaiou dé THY és 
5) \ aA ' , e t 
avtovs Tov AaKkedatpoviov UTo- 
A ’ / / 
vorav ouvevtes Apyetots Te pi- 
? DPN ALS: 
doe Ov avTO eyéevovTo. 


Paus.: kat Meconviwy tots 
, ’ / / > 
év “l0aun modopKoupévois éx- 
lal , 
TecovalW vUToaTrOVeOLsS eb0caV 
4 / 
Navrraxtov, adedopevoe Aok- 


Thucy., I, 102,4: of S ’A@n- 

lal By4 > s) \ A y 
vaiot éyvmaav ovK ml TO BEATI- 

/ b) / b) fe 
ovlt NOY ATOTTELTIOMEVOL, ANNA 
/ 
TWoOS UTOTTOU yEevomévou, Kal 
Sewvov Toinodpevor ... Apryei- 
Ta) > / / / 
ous Tols éxeivwy Trodemiows EV- 
ppayot éeyévorTo. 

Thucy., I, 103, 3: é&XOov 
6€ avtol Kal traides Kal yuvai- 
Kes, Kal avTovs ‘AOnvaio. deEa- 

2. Mv \ 
pevoe Kat éxOos 76n TO Aake- 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 69 


povs Tovs mpos Ait@Nia KaXov- 
pévous ’OLoXas. 


There is no verbal correspondence noticeable here. 


Sammoviwy és Navraxtov Kato- 
Kioay, iv ETUYOY YpNKOTES VEw- 
ati Noxpav tov ’Oforar éyov- 
TOV. 


Pausanias 


continues: tots dé Mecanviows wapécxev arenOeiv €& lOdpns Tod 
TE Ywpiov TO eyupov. This is not in Thucydides ; but in Paus., 
c. 9,3, we read: fv d€ TO Ywpiov Kal drAXws exupdv + 1) yap lddun 
peyeber Te oddevos aTrodel THY OpOV OTrOGa évTOs eat 1cOpuo0d, Kar 
dvcBatos KaTa TODTO wadLoTa HV. 

Paus.: cat Gua Aaxedarpovi- 


Thuc., I, 108, 2: Fv 8é re 


a c / i \ 
ols wpoetrev 1) IlvOia pny 
elvat odios Sikny adapTodow 
> aA \ mt) , \ 
és tov Avos tod “lOwmpara Tov 
¢ / ce / \ > 

ixéTnv. vTrootrovdo. pev éx Le- 


\ / nr 
Kal ypnoTHplov tots AaKkedat- 
/ \ \ r \ 
pooviots Ilv@txov apo tod, Tov 
CRDih la) \ ar .:9 / 
ixéTnv ToD Atos Tod "lOwpnra 
> / 
apievat. 


Notrovyncou TovTwy evexa adet- 
Onoav. 


Thucydides simply mentions the fact that there had been an 
oracle commanding the Lacedaemonians to release the suppliant 
of Zeus [thomatas. Pausanias says Pythia told them that punish- 
ment was due them for having sinned against the suppliant of 
Zeus Ithomatas. Here is evidently a reference to the first Messe- 
nian war. 

The above discussion, I think, makes it plausible that Pausa- 
nias did not obtain his sketch of the third war from Thucydides, 
but from some other source, probably Myron. 


b). Chapter XX V. 


To show that the following chapter (25) was taken from Myron 
I shall first demonstrate its unreality. The third Messenian war 
ended 462-1 B.C. (Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I1, 475), after which the 
Athenians settled the Messenians in Naupactus (Thue., I, 103, 3), 
and they were known thereafter as Meoonvioe ot é€v Navtraxt@ 
(Thuc., II, 9, 4). These Messenians, according to Pausanias, 
wishing to distinguish themselves, made an expedition against the 

5 


70 A Study in the Sources of 


town Oeniadae. This town was so well fortified and so isolated 
from the rest of Acarnania that it stood nearly always in a hostile 
relation towards the rest of Acarnania (Bursian, I, 122), and so we 
find it on the side of the Lacedaemonians, although the rest of 
Acarnania was friendly to the Athenians (Thuc., II, 82). 

Pericles made an unsuccessful attack upon it in 454 B.C. (Thuc., 
I, 111, 2), and in 429 B.C. the Athenians, under Phormion, to- 
gether with four hundred Messenians, made an expedition into 
Acarnania, but did not attack Oeniadae for the reason that, being 
winter, its situation made it impossible to do so (Thue., IT, 102). 
In the following year Asopus, the son of Phormion, made an 
attack on Oeniadae in the summer, hoping thus to succeed where 
his father had failed (Thuc., ITI, 7, 4-5). But, though he made 
his attack by land and sea, he was also unsuccessful. Finally, in 
the year 424 B.C., the Acarnanians force the Oeniadans to join 
the Athenian alliance (Thuc., IV, 77). 

Now we read in Pausanias that the Messenians captured this 
town, held it for a year, and were then driven out by the Acarna- 
nians. This account fairly bristles with impossibilities and im- 
probabilities. They must have taken it between 462 and 424 B.C. 
During this time the Athenians were fully alive to its importance, 
and, as we have seen, tried hard to get possession of it. Yet after 
the Messenians had captured it, without assistance and without 
ships, they are allowed to remain there a year without any atten- 
tion being paid them, not even by the inhabitants of Naupactus ; 
and, what is just as strange, the Messenians themselves do not 
herald their success. At the end of this time the Acarnanians, 
who are friendly to the Athenians, seem to ignore the fact that the 
Messenians are allies, attack them, and after eight months the 
Oeniadans are brought into such straits that they make a sally, 
and so succeed in fighting their way back to Naupactus. 

I think this account is an invention of Myron, who wrote it to 
fill out the period of exile. A careful historian could have found 
other material in Thucydides which would have served the same 
purpose. But, as the author of c. 25 evidently desired to glorify 
the Messenians, he preferred to draw on his imagination. 

A detailed examination will give support to this hypothesis. 
Pausanias, c. 25,1, says: ’Esret d€ éxyov thv Navrraxtov, ovK 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 71 


amréxXpn TOW TE AVTOIS Kal YoOpav Eiinpévat Tap’ AOnvaiwv, ddrAa 
apas 7000s eiyev iaxupos xepol Tais avTav davnvat NOyou Tu 
KexTnwévous aEvov. It seems that immediately on occupying Nau- 
pactus they are bent on doing something great. So in the follow- 
ing sentence, c. 25,1: dvtes S€ apiOuad pev ov TrElous, apeTr dé 
Kal TOAD apeivoves OVTES TH odetépa vixdaot, Kal érro\LopKouv 
KATAKEKNELMEVOUS es TO TELYOS, K.T.X. Compare with this ¢. 11, 4: 
aplOud péev 6 TOV évavTioy arredeElTroVTO, Noyabes Sé OVTES eua- 
XovTo pos Shuov Kal ovVX ofoiws Tpos KpEiTTOUs, K.T.r. We 
must be surprised to see such prowess in a conquered race. It is 
plain that what is said of the occupation of the town is pure fiction. 
Paus., c. 25,3: Kat éviavtov pév pardrota of Meconvioe Katécyov 
THY TOAW Kal évésovto THY yopav. They took no pains to make 
known their remarkable success. Paus., c. 25,3: tw d€ Tes TO 
voTépw Svvapmw oi ’Axapvaves avo Tacaéy cudNrEEaVTES TOV TO- 
Newv éBovrevovto ert THY Nav’raxtov otpateverv. But both 
parties were allied with the Athenians! The phrase oi ’Axapvdaves 
avo Taca@v cudréEavTEs TOV TOAEwY reminds one strongly of 
Paus., c. 17,2: “Apxddov BeBonOnkotav amo Tacav TOV TOAEOY, 
and ec. 11,1: of te ’Apxades mavotpatid, both of which are from 
Myron (see p. 37). The Acarnanians then change their minds 
and attack the Messenians in Oeniadae, notwithstanding the fact 
that the Messenians were friendly to the Athenians, and that it 
was these very Acarnanians who finally brought Oeniadae into the 
Athenian alliance. They did not think that the Messenians (c. 
25, 4) és rocodtov arrovoias HEew as to resist the whole Acarnanian 
force. Here we have the thought of desperation again, which was 
so marked in the first two wars, especially in the first. Neverthe- 
less the Messenians determine to resist, and at first before the walls 
of their town, just as they fought before the walls of Ithome in the 
first war (see p. 24). Paus., c. 25,5: pdé dvtas Meconvious, of 
pndé Aakedaipoviov avdpia TUxn € nraTTw@OnTAaY, KaTATETAI- 
xOat Tov iKovta dxydov €€ ’Axapvavias. It was in the first war 
especially that tv was opposed to the Messenians (see p. 63). 

In the battle that follows the Acarnanians try to surround the 
Messenians, but these keep the city at their backs (c. 25, 6): ai 
midat TE aTrelpyov Kata VOTOU Tois Meconviows ywopevor ; in the 
same manner ec. 11,2: [’Apsorodnpos] mpoeidero S€ Kat ores 


72 A Study in the Sources of 


Tetaypévois shiot TO pos 7 l0eun Kata vetov yivortro. The 
Messenians succeeded in holding the entire force of the Acarna- 
nians at bay till nightfall. Then, however, the Acarnanians receive 
reénforcements! They had far outnumbered the Messenians before 
this. The Messenians now hold out against a siege for eight 
months, and finally succeed in escaping, as stated above. The 
purpose of chapter 25 was evidently to describe the period of exile, 
and so lead over to the restoration. Hence it is closely connected 
with the third war, which preceded, and also with the restoration, 
which is related in the next chapter. 


c). Chapter XX VI. 


Chapter 26 begins as follows: 70 d€ awd TovTou Tov Te dNAOV 
xpovov évéxerTo aioe TO €s Naxedatpoviovs picos, Kat THY ExOpay 
és avTovs wanaoTa érredeiEavto él Tov yevopévou LeXoTrovynaiots 
apos ’AOnvatous Troréumov * THY Te yap Navrraxtov opuntnyp.ov émt 
7h UeXorovvncw mapetyovto. The prominence given here to the 
hatred which the Messenians bore the Spartans shows, I think, 
the same spirit which has been so often noted above in Myron’s 
history. We find it expressed again in c. 26, 5: oi b€ @accov 1} 
Os adv Tis WATLTE TUVENEYOnTAaY Ys TE THS TaTpidos TOOw Kal bia 
To és Aaxedaipovious picos Tapaueivay aei cdiow. No doubt 
this hatred for the Spartans, just as their friendship for the Arca- 
dians, was frequently spoken of (cf. Polyb., IV, 32), and so we 
find it mentioned again in c. 29, 3, which lies outside of Myron’s 
sphere. The remark concerning hate in c. 29, 6 is made by Pau- 
sanias himself. Nevertheless the prominence which is given to 
hatred in the passages quoted above (c. 26, 1-5) makes this 
resemble the fury which animated the contending parties in the 
first war. Very different is c. 23, 5 in the Rhianus part, where 
Manticlus tells the Messenians to forget their hatred of the 
Spartans. 

Pausanias, c. 26,1, continues: Kal tods év 7H Xpaxtnpia Xra- 
ptiatav aTorAnpbévtas Meconviwr ahevoovitar Tov é€x Navmdx- 
tov cuveéeinov. The help that the Messenians afford at Sphakteria 
is told by Thucydides, IV, 36, 1, sqq.; but he speaks of archers. 
On the other hand, slingers are mentioned in the account of the 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 73 


first war (c. 11,3). Paus., c. 26, 2, continues: érel 6€ TO Taicpa 
éyéveto TO A@nvaiwr év Aiyos Totapots, oTw Kal é€x Navidaktov 
tovs Meoonviovs éxBddrXovow oi Aakedaiporiot vavoly émikpa- 
ToovTes, of és LuKeNiav TE Tapa Tovs auyyevels Kal és “Piyrycov 
éotaddnoav. Rhianus had told only of the colony that went to 
Zancle at the invitation of Anaxilas. Myron’s account of the 
exiles was very much condensed, and yet we read in ec. 23, 6: 
petoxnoe S€ “AXkidapidas ex Meconvns és ‘Prjyiov peta Hv 
"Apiotodynmov tod BaciNéws TerevTHV Kal “lOapuns tiv docu, 
which shows that he had said more of exiles than Pausanias lets 
us see, 

The third place to which the Messenians now fled, according to 
Pausanias, was Africa. This account would be a puzzle, unless we 
recognize the constructive genius of Myron to have been at work. 
It seems to be a combination of what Diodorus, XIV, 34, 2, sqq., 
tells of the dispersion of the Messenians after they were driven out 
of Naupactus, and of some statements in Thucydides which have 
nothing to do with the Messenians; but this material has been 
much changed and additions made to it. Pausanias (ce. 26, 2) says: 
TO TAElaTOY O€ avTaV és Te ALBinv adixeto Kai AtBins és Eveorre- 
pitas: oi yap Eveorepitat Trodéum xaxwbévtes bo BapBdpev 
Tpocoikav TavTa Twa” EXXAnVa émEeKAaXODVTO TUVOLKOV. €s TOUTOUS 
tav Meconvioy To modv amexopnoev. Diodorus, XIV, 34, 2, 
sqq., tells us that the Messenians went to different countries and 
‘took part in the wars there; with this the account in Pausanias 
would harmonize fairly well; also when Diodorus says: e’s Kup7- 
vnv émAevoav Trept TptaxrLous, Which might justify the statement 
in Pausanias: 70 7AeloTov b€ avtav és te AuBvnv adixeto. Yet 
Diodorus says that they went to Cyrene, whereas Pausanias says 
to Euesperides, a town lying west of Cyrene. This discrepancy 
cannot be an accident, for the names Cyrene and Euesperitae recur 
in both accounts. 

If now we bear in mind the free manner in which Myron used 
suggestions he found in the history of Thucydides, it will be easy 
to see a close correspondence in this case. Thuc., VII, 19, 3, says: 
oi Sév TH Hedorovyjow amécteddov Tepl Tov avTOV xXpovov Tats 
OAKdoL TOS OTAiTas és THY DeKENiay, Aaxedatpoviot pev TOV TE 
Efterov émireEdpevoe tos BedXTicTovs Kal TOV veodawwdar, 


74 A Study im the Sources of 


Evvaudotépwv és EEaxocious omditas, K.T.X. This expedition is 
referred to again in Thucy., VII, 50,2: tods é« tHs IleXotrovyn- 
Gov TOD pos é€v Tals ONKAoWW OTAiTAS ATOGTANEVTAS, AdLKOMEVOUS 
ato THS AuBins és Leduwvobvta. ameveyOévtes yap és AuBunv, Kal 
dovtoyv Kupnvalav tpinpers Ovo Kal TOU TAOD ayepwovas, Kal év TO 
TapatrA@ Kveorepitas TodLopKoupevors UO AtBiwv Evppayy- 
cavTes Kal viknoavTes. Tos AiBus, Kal avToOev TapaTAEvoaVTES 
és Néav movw, K.T.X. Although there were no Messenians in 
this expedition, yet there were Helots, and one familiar with 
Thucydides, as Myron must have been, could easily have remem- 
bered some of the circumstances, especially as the Euesperitans are 
only mentioned here. Besides, this expedition met with success in 
Africa, as in Pausanias’ account, whereas Diodorus says of the 
Messenians: of 6€ Meoonvioe cyedov atravtes avnpéOncav, of 
which disaster there is not a hint in Pausanias. 

Moreover, the name of the Messenian leader which Pausanias 
(c. 26, 2) gives must be considered; he says: és tovTovs Tov 
Meconviey To Todd aTrexopnoev* Hyemov Sé odiow Hv Kopar, ds 
Kal Tepl THY Xhaxtnpiav éotpatynynoe avTtois. Neither Thucy- 
dides nor anybody else knows anything about this Comon. He is 
represented as the leader who had conducted the Messenians from 
Naupactus to Africa, and now in his old age is permitted to ex- 
perience the joy of the restoration. He is also one of the first to 
be apprised of this fact, as follows (¢. 26, 3): Eviaut@ 6€ rpétepov 
}) KatopOacar OnBaious Ta ev AevKTpots, TpOTETHmaLVeEV O Oaipov 
Meconvios TH és LeXomovyncov KadOo00v ... TOTO bé év Eveore- 
pitas Kopov cuyyevécbar vexpa TH pwntpl eddKer, cvyryevopévov 
5é, adOis of THY pyntépa avaB.ovar (cf. this dream with that of 
Aristodemus, pp. 56, 57). Kal o pev érnrrefev “A@nvaiwr duvn- 
bévtwy vavTix@ Kabodorv écecOai ogiow és Navrraxtov «70 6€ dpa 
édyjXou TO dverpov avacacecbar Meconvnv. “Kyévero te od peta 
morv év Aevxtpots Aaxedatpovioy TO aTiynua oerdopevov éx 
manXatov. Very noteworthy is the artistic feature that this gray- 
haired Messenian interprets the dream to mean only that he is to 
return to Naupactus; but the much greater happiness of being 
restored to his country is reserved to heighten his joy. Now this 
is what happens: Comon leads the Messenians back to their 
country, and they there build the walls of their city Messene. In 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 10 


the same manner Comon returned to Athens and rebuilt the walls 
there (Xen., Hell., 1V, 8,10). Besides, in Thuc., VII, 31, 4, we 
read: aduxvetrau 8é kal Kovev trap adtods, 63 hpye Navid«rou, 
k.T.2.; that is, Comon was also a commander of Naupactus. 
What an easy change to imagine a Comon to be also a leader of 
the Naupactian Messenians, who is destined to lead them back to 
their country! We must bear in mind while examining Pausanias’ 
account of the restoration that Xenophon omitted to say anything 
about it, and we have to thank Pausanias for most of what we 
know (Grote, Gk. Hist., IX, 449). Here was, then, an excellent 
opportunity for Myron to reconstruct the history of the restoration 
of the Messenians to their country. And, as I have pointed out 
above that Comon’s restoration of the walls of Athens was sugges- 
tive to him, so I find also in the same connection in Xen., IV, 8, 
10: 0 6€ dgixopevos Tord TOD TElyous WPOwcE ... Kal TéxTOCL 
Kal ALOoNGyoLs pc Odv Sid0vs, Kai GAXO el TL avayKaiov Hy, SaTra- 
vev. <A similar detail is mentioned in Paus., c. 27,5: XiAovs Te 
dryer Oar Kedevav Kal dvdpas peTaTrEuToOpevos, ols TEexVN TTEVOTIOVS 
KatatéuvecBat Kal oikias Kal iepa oixodopeicba Kat Teixn Tept- 
BaddecGar. The following sentence in Pausanias, @s dé éyéryover 
Ta TayTa ev éTOiWe@, TO éevTedOev . . . EOvov, intimates that Epami- 
nondas remained on the spot until all of these extensive preparations 
for building were complete. This seems very improbable, when 
we remember that Epaminondas had many other things to attend 
to during his stay in the Peloponnesus, and while there overstayed 
his time at the risk of being punished with death by the home 
authorities (Paus., [X, 14, 5). 

The importance of this restoration was well known. Pausanias, 
TX, 15, 6, mentions a statue of Epaminondas with this inscription : 
Kal éreyela erect dra TE és aUTOV NEéyovTA, Kal OTL Meaanvns 
yévolTo oikiaTHs Kal Tois “EXAnow UrapEecev EXevOepia Oi avdTod. 
Therefore it seemed very appropriate that the extraordinary sacri- 
fices which Pausanias (c. 27, 7) mentions should take place, and to 
further celebrate the occasion eipyafovto dé Kal vio povotKis 
ads pev ovdaptas, avrA@v 6€ Bocwrtiwv cal Apyetwov. This finds 
a parallel in Xen., Hell., II, 2, 23, where Xenophon describes how 
the walls of Athens were torn down. ‘This was also considered 
the beginning of liberty, and was also celebrated with the music of 


76 A Study in the Sources of 


flutes: Kal Ta TEelyn KaTéoKaTTOV UT’ avANTPLO@Y TOAAT TpOOV- 
pia, voulCovTes exeivny THY nuépav TH “EXNA6s apyxew THs edev- 
Oepias. 

I add a few words in conclusion in order to sum up the results 
that have been attained. 

The pith of the Messenian history les in a few facts. In very 
early times the Messenian people were conquered by the Spartans, 
and, while a part of them may have gone into exile, the majority 
were reduced to the state of the Helot class. Then, after about 
300 years, Epaminondas reorganized the Messenian state, and thus 
put an everlasting check on Spartan power. 

Almost nothing is known about these events, and Pausanias’ 
account owes its origin to the brains of patriotic Messenians, who 
invented tales whose aim was to glorify the Messenian nation at 
the expense of their perennial foes, the Spartans. To weave a 
connected account out of this material required the imaginative 
brains of such men as the poet Rhianus and the rhetorician Myron. 
We have seen the limits of Rhianus’ poem. In regard to Myron, 
however, the investigation has shown, step by step, that his Messe- 
nian history must have had a wider scope than is generally 
supposed. 

T began with the generally conceded assumption that his account 
told of the capture of Ampheia and extended as far as the death 
of Aristodemus. It was shown, however, that this assumption 
narrowed the limits of Myron’s history unduly, as it was based on 
a false interpretation of c. 6. Others had supposed that Myron’s 
history may have had an introduction, and pointed viz. to the 
Polychares episode as coming from Myron. I showed, by an 
extended examination of the introduction, that this was so closely 
related io the account of the first war that the conclusion that it 
had been written by Myron seems inevitable. Next it was shown 
that Myron’s history had extended to the close of the first war, and 
had even related how the Messenians had been exiled. Now 
already the scope of Myron’s history appeared such that it would 
have seemed strange if Myron would have been satisfied to stop at 
the first war. But another chapter, which dealt with cc. 14-17, 
showed that Myron had not undertaken to write distinctly of the 
first war; but, as he had included the stories about Aristomenes, 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. ue 


besides other matter which pertained to the second war, he had 
possibly had a larger aim in view, which was to tell all about the 
way in which the Messenians had been subjugated by the Spartans. 
In doing this he used all the tradition available, in order to tell of 
one great war. From this conception of Myron’s history it was 
but a step to another conclusion, namely, that Myron had also 
related how the Messenians had been restored to their country by 
Epaminondas. An examination of the account of the restoration 
has made it clear that this had actually been the case. Accord- 
ingly, we see that Myron’s history had extended from the earliest 
mythological period down to 370 B.C., which limits would natu- 
rally present themselves to one who wished, as Myron did, to 
glorify the Messenian nation. 


ACER 
ff OF THE | 
\ UNE, 
X OF Y 

_ CALIFO RNG 


a 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


A. BoreckH. Opuscula Academica Berolinensia. Lepsiae, 1874. 

C. BurstAn. Geographie von Griechenland. Leipzig, 1862. 

Busour. Griechische Geschichte. Gotha, 1885-1888. 

Busotr. Zu den Quellen der Messeniaka des Pausanias. (Neue Jahrbiicher f. 
Philologie, 1883, p. 814.) 

A. Conat. Poésie Alexandrine. Paris, 1882. 

M. DunckeEr. Geschichte des Alterthums. VI, 106. Leipzig, 1882. 

A. Enmann. Die Quellen des Pompeius Trogus. Dorpat, 1880. 

Gururrr. Uber Pausanias. 1890. 

Grote. History of Greece. London, 1869. 

W. Iywerwanr. Die Lakonika des Pausanias. Berlin, 1889. 

Fr. JAcoss. Vermischte Schriften. 8ter B4. Leipzig, 1844. 

A. KALKMANN. Pausanias der Periceget. Berlin, 1886. 

PH. KOHLMANN. Quaestiones Messeniacae. Bonnae, 1866. 

MeErNeke. Abhandlungen. Berlin, 1832. 

MEINEKE. Analecta Alexandrina. 

O. Mtrier. Die Dorier. Breslau, 1844. 

C. MtLier. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Paris, 1848. 

H. Nissen. Kritische Untersuchungen iib. die Quellen der vierten u. fiinften 
Decade des Livius. Berlin, 1863. 

C. WERNICKE. De Pausaniae Periegetae Studiis Herodoteis. Berolini, 1884. 


78 





UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 


Fine schedule: 25 cents on first day overdue 
50 cents on fourth day overdue 
One dollar on seventh day overdue. 


AN OTR ea eee 


em 





SAN 2 8 1985 
REC, CIR, app 3 34 








LD 21-100m-12,'46 (A2012s16) 4120 


. 








J 


’ 
’ 
‘ 
+t 
a 
’ 
~ 
' 


4 
a 


Ph ta oe ae a 5 “2 KSA en af 


——— 


Se 
7 rep 


~ RLF 
a eS 


SS eS 
as 


16 va ae 


rf 


ie 


err re moe 
ne le ene ee ee a 


ase ; rm 
Sra a 


et es 


2 te ees Se = = ~ 
= SSS Sa aes 


eR a A et 
as 
ae es 

5 SE a 
ae aa as rt 





